# Hall, Marvin W. v. Giant Food Inc

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 25, 1999 · 175 F.3d 1074

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439144

## Case

- **Full name:** Marvin W. HALL, Appellant, v. GIANT FOOD, INC., Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** May 25, 1999
- **Citations:** 175 F.3d 1074; 336 U.S. App. D.C. 63; 76 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 46,084; 79 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1684; 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 10053; 1999 WL 325002
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Henderson
- **Judges:** Edwards, Sentelle, Henderson
- **Cited by:** 118 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439144

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding summary judgment was warranted in the defendant’s favor because the plaintiff offered “no evidence that [his supervisor] recommended to [the final decision maker] that [the plaintiff] be discharged, that [the supervisor] was sufficiently involved to be aware of [the…
- holding that under the ADEA, if plaintiff succeeds in establishing her prima facie case, the burden then “ ‘shifts to the employer to articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the challenged employment decision’ ”
- concluding that an employee’s discriminatory remark was insufficient to save a claim from summary judgment when there was no evidence that the employee influenced the decision to fire the plaintiff
- finding no evidence of discrimination where there was no evidence that the plaintiffs supervisors, who allegedly made discriminatory remarks, actually participated in employer’s discharge decisions
- stating that a subordinate “merely communicated the facts” and that the plaintiff had “offer[ed] no evidence that [the subordinate] recommended” that the plaintiff be discharged

## Opinion text

KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
While I concur in the result, I write separately to point out that the first sentence of paragraph 6 of Hall’s affidavit (as Hall’s lawyer — who acknowledged he drafted the affidavit — conceded at oral argument), which avers that Sanford “informed [Hall] that the true reason for [Hall’s] termination was [Hall’s] age, not the other reasons raised earlier,” is Hall’s lawyer’s gloss on Sanford’s actual words quoted in the next two sentences of paragraph 6 — that he was “too old,” that she wanted “younger,” safer drivers and that he “had to go.” Hall Aff. ¶ 6, reprinted in App. 24. Hall, then, does not aver that Sanford in fact said “the true reason for [his] termination was [his] age,” id., and there is no other evidence of discrimination in the record. Accordingly, Hall failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and I find it unnecessary to go further.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9439144. Public record. Not legal advice.