§Why CasetextPricing

Willard v. AHS Oklahoma Physician Group, LLC

RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion for Renewed Rule 50 Motion for Judgment as a Matter or in the Alternative, Rule 59 Motion for New Trial or Remittitur

66 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,110 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

  2. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.

    557 U.S. 167 (2009)   Cited 4,484 times   83 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act's language "because of such individual's age," required plaintiff show "age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer's adverse decision"

  3. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

    507 U.S. 604 (1993)   Cited 1,906 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other

  4. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,161 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context

  5. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood

    464 U.S. 548 (1984)   Cited 1,402 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to obtain a new trial because of a juror's alleged untruthfulness during voir dire, "a party must first demonstrate that a juror failed to answer honestly a material question on voir dire, and then further show that a correct response would have provided a valid basis for a challenge for cause."

  6. Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n

    458 U.S. 219 (1982)   Cited 747 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claimant need not “accept a demotion” in order to mitigate damages

  7. Rachid v. Jack in the Box, Inc.

    376 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,231 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, under Desert Palace, “the direct evidence requirement has been removed from mixed-motive cases,” justifying the use of an “integrated,” “modified McDonnell Douglas approach”

  8. Connecticut v. Teal

    457 U.S. 440 (1982)   Cited 537 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a pass-fail threshold test for promotions, which had a disparate impact on African-Americans, could meet the plaintiffs' prima facie burden

  9. L.A. Dept. of Water Power v. Manhart

    435 U.S. 702 (1978)   Cited 555 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer's policy requiring female employees to make larger pension fund contributions than male employees was discriminatory on its face in violation of Title VII

  10. Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture

    235 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 833 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that coworker's frequently repeated comment that the plaintiff was an "old bitch" showed a discriminatory animus

  11. Rule 59 - New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 59   Cited 43,499 times   66 Legal Analyses
    Allowing a party to move to alter or amend a judgment "no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment"

  12. Rule 50 - Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 50   Cited 13,615 times   62 Legal Analyses
    Allowing "renewed motion"

  13. Rule 61 - Harmless Error

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 61   Cited 2,568 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding a judgment will not be set aside for harmless error

  14. Section 1625.7 - Differentiations based on reasonable factors other than age

    29 C.F.R. § 1625.7   Cited 47 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Concerning use of the RFOA defense against an “individual claim of discriminatory treatment”