Vernon E. Christensen v. Titan Distribution, 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 fact that “none of the [Defendants’] decision-makers who testified at trial were willing to accept responsibility for making the decision not to hire [the Plain- tiff]” could lead a jury to find pretext
• listing the inability of any of Defendant’s employees to accept responsibility as one of the three pieces of evidence that showed Defendant’s proffered reason was pretextual
• pretext finding supported in part by evidence that decisionmakers were not willing to accept responsibility for decision, but each blamed others
• “While other evidence may sufficiently support the jury’s finding that Titan regarded Christensen as disabled, we need not make that determination because we find . . . that the evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury to find that Christensen was actually disabled.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).