Closing comments At a decided disadvantage because she was pro se, Complainant was unable to get any of her exhibits admitted into evidence. And in her post-hearing and reply briefs, Complainant failed to support her proposed findings of fact with proper citations to the record. Instead, Complainant often refers to facts that were not presented as evidence at the public hearing. Complainant repeatedly dwells on and cites the undisputed fact that she was replaced by a younger person. Complainant then assumes that this fact conclusively establishes age discrimination.
Complainant misunderstands the purpose of a prima facie case.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for a directed finding as to age discrimination was granted. Therefore, it is recommended that an order be entered dismissing with prejudice the complaint and underlying charge number 1992 CA 0638. March 27, 1998. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses is not in accord with the findings herein, it is not credited. This site is maintained by the Center for Law and Computers at Chicago-Kent College of Law , Illinois Institute of Technology.