Inskeep
Inskeep v. CH20 Inc.
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Eugene L. Inskeep, Jr. sued CH20 Inc. for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., after the company fired him. The district court granted judgment as a matter of law for CH20 after Inskeep presented his case to the jury, because although he had established a prima facie case and introduced evidence of pretext, he had not put forth evidence that age motivated the decision to fire him. We reverse.
A court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law “[i]f during a trial by jury a party has been fully heard on an issue and there is no legally sufficient evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find for that party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 50(a)(1). We review de novo the grant of a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. EEOC v. Pape Lift, Inc., 115 F.3d 676 , 680 (9th Cir.1997).
The district court in this case stated that although Inskeep established his prima facie case and presented testimony that CH2 0’s purported reasons for firing him were pretextual, he had to “go one step further and present some evidence of intent to discharge him based on his age.” But such evidence of…