William O. WATKINS, William R. Mallory, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SVERDRUP TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the plaintiff failed to raise sufficient incoherencies to satisfy its “pretext burden”
• discussing use of statistical evidence of discrimination in reduction in force
• “The most fatal shortcoming, though, was that . . . plaintiffs did not identify any new employees similarly situated to themselves.”
• “Noticeably absent from Watkins’s mathematical observations, however, was the fact that TEAS retained scores of employees well over forty years-of-age after the RIF.”
• “[W]hile this superficial presentation [of statistical evidence] may have satisfied plaintiffs’ prima facie burden, it failed to support any inference of intentional age discrimination after [the defendant] explained the data in a plausible, age-neutral fashion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).