23-02-2016, 01:44 AM
I found this case here: Hinga v. MIC Group (a subsidiary of JB Poindexter). Hinga was a 76 year old machinist at a MIC plant, who was blamed for a recall of a batch of actuators that didn't meet specifications. Hinga, and the guy who was supposed to inspect his parts, were fired. Both of the men represented that they had properly inspected the actuators, but a company investigation found them at fault and fired them. The investigation also revealed that the machines Hinga was working on were improperly maintained (not Hinga's fault, but that didn't seem to matter). The recall cost MIC $194,000. Hinga, 76, and a pre-existing employee of MIC when Poindexter acquired them, filed for age discrimination.
The US District court ruled that Hinga had not set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination because he had not produced evidence that younger employees who were not discharged were similarly situated (Hinga was the only machinist fired, indeed, he was the only machinist who made these parts). The district court also found, alternatively, that Hinga did not demonstrate a genuine dispute that MIC's proffered reason for his termination was pretextual (despite the improper maintenance finding in the investigation). These findings effectively denied Hinga relief, and he appealed.
The 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit (in my humble experience and opinion, a bad place to argue an employment discrimination case) ruled, in an unpublished opinion: "Without evidence of the same job responsibilities, nearly identical conduct, or similar violation histories, there is no prima facie case of discrimination." (The Court didn't seem to care that there was no one else with Hinga's job duties.) (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unp...0616.0.pdf)
Hinga filed an application for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court on 7/29/15. On 10/5/15, the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. In February 2016, Justice Scalia got a free flight to the hunting resort owned by JB Poindexter, where his stay was also comped. Had he not died in bed there, this event likely would have never been noticed.
The New York Times says of the current Supreme Court: "There is little doubt, statistically, that the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has been more sympathetic to corporate interests than any court since World War II." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinio....html?_r=0
The Atlanta Journal calls the Scalia-Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Kennedy court "an enforcer of corporate power."
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2...ate-power/
Minnesota Law Review: 5 judges mentioned above are all in the top 10 most business friendly justices in their eras.
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-con...er_MLR.pdf
It is clear that this election, and the arguments over whether Obama can appoint a new justice, clearly matter a great deal to corporate interests.
The US District court ruled that Hinga had not set forth a prima facie case of age discrimination because he had not produced evidence that younger employees who were not discharged were similarly situated (Hinga was the only machinist fired, indeed, he was the only machinist who made these parts). The district court also found, alternatively, that Hinga did not demonstrate a genuine dispute that MIC's proffered reason for his termination was pretextual (despite the improper maintenance finding in the investigation). These findings effectively denied Hinga relief, and he appealed.
The 5[SUP]th[/SUP] Circuit (in my humble experience and opinion, a bad place to argue an employment discrimination case) ruled, in an unpublished opinion: "Without evidence of the same job responsibilities, nearly identical conduct, or similar violation histories, there is no prima facie case of discrimination." (The Court didn't seem to care that there was no one else with Hinga's job duties.) (http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unp...0616.0.pdf)
Hinga filed an application for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court on 7/29/15. On 10/5/15, the Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal. In February 2016, Justice Scalia got a free flight to the hunting resort owned by JB Poindexter, where his stay was also comped. Had he not died in bed there, this event likely would have never been noticed.
The New York Times says of the current Supreme Court: "There is little doubt, statistically, that the Supreme Court presided over by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. has been more sympathetic to corporate interests than any court since World War II." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/opinio....html?_r=0
The Atlanta Journal calls the Scalia-Roberts-Alito-Thomas-Kennedy court "an enforcer of corporate power."
http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2...ate-power/
Minnesota Law Review: 5 judges mentioned above are all in the top 10 most business friendly justices in their eras.
http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/wp-con...er_MLR.pdf
It is clear that this election, and the arguments over whether Obama can appoint a new justice, clearly matter a great deal to corporate interests.
"All that is necessary for tyranny to succeed is for good men to do nothing." (unknown)
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."
James Tracy: "There is sometimes an undue amount of paranoia among some conspiracy researchers that can contribute to flawed observations and analysis."
Gary Cornwell (Dept. Chief Counsel HSCA): "A fact merely marks the point at which we have agreed to let investigation cease."
Alan Ford: "Just because you believe it, that doesn't make it so."