Alfred L. Stone v. City of Indianapolis Public Utilities Division

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that where plaintiff can prove that protected activity resulted in his termination, then McDonnellr-Douglas need not apply
• holding that summary judgment in favor of defendant is required when defendant presents \unrebutted evidence that he would have taken the adverse employment action against the plaintiff even if he had had no retaliatory motive\
• holding that summary judgment in favor of defendant is required when defendant presents “unre-butted evidence that he would have taken the adverse employment action against the plaintiff even if he had had no retaliatory motive”
• holding that summary judgment in favor of defendant is required when defen- dant presents “unrebutted evidence that he would have taken the adverse employment action against the plain- tiff even if he had had no retaliatory motive”
• noting that mere temporal proximity between the protected conduct and the allegedly retaliatory act “will rarely be sufficient in and of itself to create a triable issue”
• finding that “mere temporal proximity” between the complaint and the alleged retaliation “will rarely be sufficient” to survive summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).