Legal Opinion
Matras v. Amoco Oil Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 18, 1986No. 73356, (Calendar No. 5)PublishedCited by 184 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLevin, J.
The issue presented is whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside a jury verdict on the ground that there was insufficient evidence for a reasonable person to find that age discrimination was a determining factor in the discharge of Edmund Matras. We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to find that age discrimination was a determining factor, and that the Court of Appeals did err.
Amoco instituted a lay-off plan that classified workers by age, sex, and race to maintain a fixed percentage of workers in each category. The record does not show a need for…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Fullilove v. KlutznickSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- United Steelworkers of America v. WeberSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by184 opinions
- Judson C. Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Refining Corporation Quaker State CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1995
- Robert v. McDonald v. Union Camp CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
- Simpson v. Midland-Ross Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1987
- Meagher v. Wayne State UniversityMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
179 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.