Allman v. Corban

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to find discrimination where “multiple persons with various degrees of influence participated in the ultimate [termination] decision”
• outlining prima facie case for Rehabilitation Act claim before discussing different causation standards
• citing, Jones v. Potter, 488 F.3d 397, 404 (6th Cir. 2007)
• “Whether the comparison between similarly situated individuals is sufficiently relevant is itself a jury question.”
• “Discriminatory remarks, however, are direct evidence of discrimination only when they come from a supervisor with at least a ‘meaningful role in the decisionmaking process.’”
• “The Rehabilitation Act forbids discrimination based on disability, and a plaintiff may prove a Rehabilitation Act violation through direct or indirect evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).