Ahern v. Shinseki

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a “gap of several months” between protected speech and allegedly retaliatory conduct was insufficient to prove retaliation in Title VII context
• holding that the lack of evidence specifying when material events occurred renders “any temporal link ,.. entirely conjectural”
• holding that a \gap of several months\ between protected speech and allegedly retaliatory conduct was insufficient to prove retaliation in Title VII context
• explaining that Title VII is “not intended to function as a collective panacea for every work-related experience that is in some respect unjust, unfair, or unpleasant”
• stressing that “[a]n appellant cannot change horses in mid-stream, arguing one theory below and a quite different theory on appeal”
• suggesting that a time gap of several months between the protected activity and adverse act coupled with “some corroborating evidence suggestive of causation” can ground an inference of causal connection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).