Abel v. Dubberly

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Title VII and § 1983 claims have the same elements where the claims are based on the same set of facts
• holding that the same analysis applies to Title VII and § 1983 claims “when the two claims arise from the same conduct and constitute parallel remedies”
• explaining Eleventh Circuit precedent “expressly permits consideration of a Rule 50 motion after the denial of summary judgment”; (collecting cases)
• reviewing de novo a district court’s grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50
• “Furthermore, even if one grants that a similarly situated employee was treated in a different manner, Abel’s admission that she took the money rebuts any prima facie case of discrimination[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).