Legal Opinion
Robert TINKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Defendant-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided October 14, 1997No. 96-1418PublishedCited by 68 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KEITH, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Tinker (“Tinker”) appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the defen dant in this age discrimination action. The district court found that Tinker had failed to prove a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court below also found that Tinker had failed to prove that Defendanb-Appellee Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s (“Sears”) proffered reason for terminating Tinker’s employment was a pretext for age discrimination. For the reasons below, we REVERSE in part, AFFIRM in part 1 , and REMAND this case for further proceedings…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chemicals Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Paul Bender, George and Diane Decarlo v. Southland CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1984
- Barnes v. GenCorp Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- William McNabola v. Chicago Transit AuthorityCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1993
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by68 opinions
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2000
- Allen v. Highlands Hospital Corp.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2008
- John George v. Youngstown State Univ.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2020
- Fredrick P. Godfredson v. Hess & Clark, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Jajeh v. County of CookCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2012
63 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.