Vicki G. Paluck v. Gooding Rubber Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “statistical evidence” concerning whether “the RIF disproportionately affected employees protected by the ADEA” was insufficient alone for pretext purposes
• finding that a one-year interval between the protected expression and the employee’s termination, standing alone, is too long to raise an inference of discrimination
• stating that timing of the adverse action is suspicious when it occurs \fairly soon after the employee's protected expression\
• noting that a RIF that disproportionately affects workers of a protected class may indicate that the RIF “was an excuse to get rid of workers belonging to a protected group”
• finding that a nearly 18– 2 month lapse, on its own, did not give rise to an inference of causation and collecting cases 3 that held similarly regarding timeframes of four, five, and eight months
• stating that the key inquiry in determining whether to apply the RIF or the mini-RIF prima facie test is not the number of individuals terminated, but whether the duties of those individuals were absorbed by existing staff or eliminated altogether

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).