Legal Opinion

Goodman v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided January 15, 2004No. 02-36114; D.C. No. CV-00-00460-WFNPublished

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”) appeals the district court’s judgment in favor of Michael Goodman on his claim for age discrimination under the Washington Law *411Against Discrimination (WLAD), Wash. Rev.Code § 49.60.180(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm in part but remand for clarification on the damages award.

Sears first claims that the district court erred by requiring it to prove through “conclusive” or “uncontroverted independent evidence” that its decision to terminate Goodman was not based on his age. We review this question of state law de novo. See…

2Cases cited13 opinions

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
Raymond Vincent Nidds v. Schindler Elevator CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
Nada Raad v. Fairbanks North Star Borough School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-IWashington Supreme Court · 2001
61 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 1505, 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,511 William L. Nesbit v. Pepsico, Inc., Charles A. Selby v. Pepsico, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.