Rudolph STECKL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA, 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.

• recognizing that the plaintiff’s “mere assertions” that the defendant had a discriminatory intent were inadequate, without substantial factual evidence, to raise an issue to preclude summary judgment
• indicating that \the use of summary procedures is proper in appropriate discrimination actions even when plaintiff has established a prima facie case\
• finding employer’s decision to promote based on relative expertise and experience of employees was legitimate
• failing to produce any facts, which if believed, would have shown pretext
• establishing the same two steps in an ADEA case relying on the McDonnell Douglas factors
• finding plaintiff showed prima facie case where he “was clearly within the 14 protected class, had applied for an available position for which he was qualified, and was 15 denied a promotion which was given to a younger person”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).