A lawsuit alleging Intel discriminated against an Oregon engineer because of his age and nationality can go forward, a federal judge ruled last week.

Ron Tsur sued Intel last year alleging he lost his job at the chipmaker during 2015 layoffs because of his age, because he’s originally from Israel, and because he filed a whistleblower complaint alleging improper conduct by a former supervisor.

Intel sought to dismiss the case, arguing that Tsur’s evidence is insufficient to prove his case. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon disagreed, ruling that the case can proceed to trial on three of the four claims Tsur made.

Intel declined comment on Simon’s ruling. Tsur referred questions to his Portland attorney, who did not immediately respond to a message Tuesday.

After 27 years as an Intel contractor, Tsur joined the company as a full-time employee in 2011. His suit alleges that his supervisor gave him poor reviews the following year and made disparaging comments about his age and his nationality. Tsur was 59 at the time.

Tsur complained to an Intel executive and the company ultimately placed him under the supervision of two other managers, each of whom gave him satisfactory marks. But Tsur alleged that the poor ratings from his first supervisor cost him his job when Intel implemented broad layoffs in 2015.

The Oregonian/OregonLive reported that the layoffs in both 2015 and 2016 fell disproportionately on older workers and that Intel had changed its criteria for determining who would lose their jobs. Laid-off employees claimed the new rules were unfair and contributed to the high proportion of senior workers who lost their jobs.

In his ruling, Simon found Tsur had met the evidentiary threshold to have a jury decide whether his supervisor’s conduct was discriminatory. The judge cited a legal doctrine that holds an employer responsible for a manager’s discriminatory conduct.

However, Simon ruled that a 2005 Supreme Court ruling bars Tsur from arguing that systemic age discrimination affected him personally. Simon said that even if Intel’s layoff criteria disproportionately affected older workers, it’s not illegal if Intel had a reasonable case other than age for applying the criteria.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conducted a six-year inquiry into Intel’s 2015 and 2016 layoffs. The commission found Intel discriminated against eight older workers during the 2015 job cuts. But the commission does much of its work in secret, and it’s unclear what action, if any, the agency took to address the issue. An EEOC spokesperson said Tuesday that agency is barred by law from commenting on a case unless it files a lawsuit against a company.

Intel began a fresh round of layoffs last fall, but appears to be using a different criteria than it applied in 2015 and 2016 for determining which employees lose their jobs.

The chipmaker, Oregon’s largest corporate employer, has consistently denied that it discriminated against older employees. In its legal filings, Intel denied discriminating against Tsur in any way.