Todd Drydock, Engineering & Repair Corp. v. Merritt-Chapman & Scott Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that although a jury may ultimately accept an employer’s “shifting explanations,” such fact issues should not be resolved on summary judgment
• holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists where -an employer provides “shifting explanations,” which a jury could ultimately accept
• reversing summary judg- ment because “the weighing of [a witness’ conflicting testi- mony] is for a jury, not a judge” (citing Abdul-Jabbar v. Gen. Motors Corp., 85 F.3d 407, 410 (9th Cir.1996))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).