adopting the analytical framework set forth inMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, and applying federal guidelines and requirements to a claim of age discrimination
How later courts described this case
- adopting the analytical framework set forth inMcDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, and applying federal guidelines and requirements to a claim of age discrimination
- applying the framework in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), to an age discrimination claim under Ohio law
- adopting the guidelines set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668
- adopting the guidelines set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973),411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 07ap-766 (6-5-2008), 2008 Ohio 2698 (2008)
{¶ 22} Coryell contends that both Barker and Caster are distinguishable and that neither compels the conclusion that he was not discharged.
The opinion
J. P. Celebrezze, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. An appellate court’s scope of review of the trial court’s factual determinations is limited to whether there is a substantial evidentiary basis for the determinations. See Gillen-Crow Pharmacies, Inc. v. Mandzak (1966), 5 Ohio St. 2d 201, 205 [ 34 O.O.2d 417 ]. Having examined the record, I believe there is. Hence the appellate court’s judgment should be reversed.