Ronald ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that potentially age-related comments made by the supervisor who decided to terminate the plaintiff offered sufficient direct evidence of discrimination to survive summary judgment
• holding that comments about the company not keeping employees on until they reached sixty-five could not be considered stray remarks for the purposes of summary judgment
• holding that comments about the company not keeping employees on until they reached sixty-five could not be considered stray remarks for the purposes of summary judgment
• noting that § 1915(e)(2)(B) “mandates dismissal— 24 even if dismissal comes before the defendants are served”
• denying summary judgment where the decisionmaker’s statements were susceptible to both discriminatory and benign interpretations, reasoning that their meaning and significance presented a question “for the finder of fact”
• statement by decisionmaker that employer would no longer be keeping its employees until they reached age sixty-five permits inference that age played a role in decision to terminate the plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).