Rosalie Cullen v. Olin Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that district court may consider only evidence that decision-maker considered in determining whether stated reasons were pretextual
• finding that district court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of post-RIF job performance that \had no bearing on management’s state of mind at the time the decision to terminate [the plaintiff] was made\
• granting defendants’ motion for new trial when plaintiff’s “most compelling and supportive evidence,” referenced in opening and closing statements and in cross-examination, was irrelevant and prejudicial and should not have been admitted
• The question in an ADEA case is the employer’s “state of mind at the time the decision to terminate [employee] was made.”
• jury verdict upheld when there was evidence that an executive who reviewed personnel decisions made discriminatory comments, and this together with other evidence supported an inference of discrimination
• remarks combined with proof that plaintiffs performance ratings were superior and plaintiffs job duties were taken over by younger employees sufficient to infer age was a factor in the discharge decision

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).