that is the question the Chief Justice asked. Is a single slang (pejorative) enough?

and the lawyers responded by putting words all around it, instead of a simple yes or no.

“I think if the decisionmakers are sitting around the table and they say, we’ve got Candidate A who’s 35 and we’ve got Candidate B who’s 55 and is a boomer and is probably tired and — and, you know, doesn’t have a lot of computer skills, I think that absolutely would be actionable,” Martinez says.”

“Candidate A who’s 35 and we’ve got Candidate B who’s 55” seems actionable on its face, as direct comparison of age in candidates, assuming age has no basis in the job requirements – which must be true for almost every imaginable position.

“and is a boomer and is probably tired – ” seems actionable as an age-related opinion and negative reference.

” and, you know, doesn’t have a lot of computer skills” doesn’t seem actionable, assuming computer skills are needed for the job, and the employer/potential employer has tested the two candidate’s computer skills via the same method, so as to have a means of comparison. Of course, if that’s another baseless assumption, then its a miracle a company so badly run and unskilled at sorting job applicants is big enough to need multiple decision makers in hiring/promoting. Not that such a thing is impossible, I’ve worked for a number of companies with highly incompetent managers and promotion practices.