LeClair v. Saunders

How later courts describe this case

• recognizing the dangers of such a case-by-case determination in the context of motor vehicle safety standards but declining to reverse a judgment entered on a verdict of a jury that was allowed very broad discretion by the trial court’s charge
• affirming the determination of the district court that affidavits of fellow employees stating that the plaintiffs performance was satisfactory was not enough to create a material issue of fact as to the quality of his work where employer felt that his work was unsatisfactory
• denial of motion affirmed “unless record is critically deficient of that minimum quantum of evidence from which a jury might reasonably afford relief’
• “Compliance with the safety standards promulgated pursuant to the [Act] ... does not relieve Chrysler of liability in this [products liability] action.”
• the ADEA “was not intended as a vehicle for judicial review of business decisions”
• the jury verdict must be sustained unless the record "is critically deficient of that minimum quantum of evidence from which a jury might reasonably afford relief"
• “the judgments of some who thought [a plaintiffs] work was good” not enough to raise material issue of fact as to whether plaintiff had “met his employer’s legitimate expectations”
• “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ... was not intended as a vehicle for judicial review of business decisions.”