No. 21-136
Melanie Pelcha v. Watch Hill Bank
Tags: adea age-discrimination but-for-causation but-for-test causal-standard causation employment employment-law summary-judgment workplace-termination
Key Terms:
Arbitration ERISA EmploymentDiscrimina
Arbitration ERISA EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference:
2021-11-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the ADEA require proving age was the sole reason for termination?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) require the plaintiff to prove that age was the sole reason for her termination? 2. Is the employer liable under the ADEA if there are multiple but-for reasons for an employee’s termination and age was one of those reasons? 3. Is the evidence in this case sufficient to satisfy the proper causal standard on summary judgment?
Docket Entries
2021-11-08
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
2021-10-01
Brief of respondent Watch Hill Bank in opposition filed.
2021-08-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 1, 2021.
2021-08-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 1, 2021 to October 1, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-07-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 1, 2021)
Attorneys
Melanie Pelcha
Donald Bernard Hordes — Ritter and Randolph, LLC, Petitioner
Donald Bernard Hordes — Ritter and Randolph, LLC, Petitioner
Watch Hill Bank
William David Edwards — Ulmer & Beme LLP, Respondent
William David Edwards — Ulmer & Beme LLP, Respondent