Calvin Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools

How later courts described this case

• stating that “[i]f the evidence put forth by the plaintiff to establish the prima facie case and to rebut the employer’s reason is not substantial, a jury cannot reasonably infer discriminatory intent ...and “[w]hen a plaintiff has offered pretextual evidence that allows a factfinder to reject the defendant’s proffered reasons and infer discrimination, other circuits have been unwilling to upset a jury verdict for the plaintiff’
• holding that a plaintiff can avoid summary judgment only if she “(1) creates a fact issue as to whether each of the employer’s stated reasons was what actually motivated the employer and (2) creates a reasonable inference that age was a determinative factor in the actions of which plaintiff complains.” (emphasis added)
• holding that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of discrimination when the plaintiff demonstrated that the employer's proffered explanation, poor performance, was pretextual because his poor results were due to the company's prices and a poor customer base
• holding that to avoid summary judgment in an ADEA action, an employee must present evidence that both: (1) rebuts the employer’s nondiscriminatory reason, and (2) creates an inference that age was a determinative factor in the challenged employment decision

Written by the judges who cited it.