Schlett v. Avco Financial Services, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the regulation, though valid, was not applicable because it could not be applied retroactively
• holding that “direct evidence is found, for instance, where an employer’s policy is discriminatory on its face or where a statement by an employer directly shows there is a discriminatory motive.”
• refusing to apply regulation that took effect after events at issue but while action was pending
• characterizing a plaintiff who had worked for ten months as ineligible under the “plain language of the statute”
• refusing to apply regulation that took effect after events at issue but while action was pending
• \The post hoc position advocated by Plaintiffs ... subjects the employer to an unacceptable degree of uncertainty as to its legal obligations.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).