LeClair v. Saunders

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 ADEA “was not intended as a vehicle for judicial review of business decisions” | “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ... was not intended as a vehicle for judicial review of business decisions.” | a case where the sheriff personally selected his acquaintances as additional panel members and seven of them actually served on the jury | “It is apparent that in the usual case, absent any discriminatory intent, discharged employees will more often than not be replaced by those younger than they.” | 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” | To state an equal protection claim for selective application of a facially lawful state regulation, a plaintiff must allege that “(1) the person, compared with others similarly situated, was selectively treated; and (2 | expert testimony established design defect enhanced injuries