Dirusso v. Aspen School District #1
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
123 F. App’x 826 (2004)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Suzanne Nivette (plaintiff) was 50 years old when she applied for a position as a special-education inclusion facilitator at a public high school. Nivette was licensed to teach special education but had not done so for seven years and had never worked in an inclusion setting. Lisa Halverson, the school’s assistant principal in charge of special education, hired Nivette and became her supervisor. Nivette’s colleagues complained to Halverson about Nivette’s communication style and inability to learn on the job. Halverson gave Nivette two critical evaluations over the course of the school year before informing Nivette that she was not going to recommend that Nivette’s contract be renewed. Halverson offered Nivette the opportunity to resign before the recommendation was issued. Nivette both submitted a letter resignation and filed a challenge to Halverson’s recommendation with the school district (defendant). Halverson then hired a 51-year-old special-education teacher to replace Nivette. Nivette filed an action pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in district court. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the district, finding that Nivette had not made a prima facie case of age discrimination, and Nivette appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Anderson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.