Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “unsubstantiated oral reprimands” and “unnecessary derogatory statements” that did not affect plaintiffs employment were not adverse actions
• holding that isolation and lack of respect from fellow managers and co-workers did not amount to adverse employment action
• holding that unsubstantiated oral reprimands and unnecessary derogatory comments were not adverse employment ac-~ions in a retaliatory conduct case
• holding that oral reprimands and derogatory comments do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action
• holding that oral reprimands were not actionable under Title VII’s retaliation clause and adding that “[otherwise, minor and even trivial employment actions that ‘an irritable, chip-on-the-shoulder employee did not like would form the basis of a discrimination suit.’ ”
• holding that § 1983 plaintiff is required to show that supervisor personally participated in violating her rights, that he directed others to violate her rights, or that he had knowledge of and acquiesced in his subordinates’ violations

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).