Sorbo v. United Parcel Service

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that Rule 60(b) motion filed a year after judgment was not made within a reasonable time
• holding that “computer assisted legal research” is “not within the scope of § 1920”
• recognizing that “proof that the employer treated similarly situated employees more favorably” is “just one sufficient means to do this and should not itself be mistaken as an indispensable element of the prima facie case”
• noting that the discriminatory intent factor “may be (and often is) satisfied by” proof of disparate treatment
• stating that “several cases involving adverse action prompted by unsatisfactory performance or misconduct have framed the [third] element ... broadly, as requiring a showing of circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination”
• stating that the broader requirement of showing circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination “may be (and often is) satisfied by proof that the employer treated similarly situated employees more favorably”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).