Sinicropi v. Nassau County

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing the dangers of such a case-by-case determination in the context of motor vehicle safety standards but declining to reverse a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury that was allowed very broad discretion by the trial court’s charge
• affirming the determination of the district court that affidavits of fellow employees stating that the plaintiffs performance was satisfactory was not enough to create a material issue of fact as to the quality of his work where employer felt that his work was unsatisfactory
• “the judgments of some who thought [a plaintiffs] work was good” not enough to raise material issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had “met his employer’s legitimate expectations”
• a case where the sheriff personally selected his acquaintances as additional panel members and seven of them actually served on the jury
• “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ... was not intended as a vehicle for judicial review of business decisions.”
• “It is apparent that in the usual case, absent any discriminatory intent, discharged employees will more often than not be replaced by those younger than they.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).