A law firm was entitled to summary judgment on an employee’s age discrimination and retaliation claims because no reasonable juror could conclude that the firm’s reasons for terminating the employee are not based in fact, a federal court has held.
Where a defendant employer has moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff employee’s claim of age discrimination, that motion should be allowed because no reasonable juror could conclude that the defendant’s proffered reasons for terminating the plaintiff are not based in fact.
Dykema Gossett PLLC has asked a Michigan federal judge to hand it a victory in an age discrimination suit from a former legal secretary, insisting she was fired because of her poor attitude and inability to adapt and not because of her age.