Ann Bogren v. State Of Minnesota

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff did not engage in activity protected by Title VII where plaintiff complained to the investigator about harassing conduct that was directed at both male and female cadets
• finding that there was \sufficient evidence in the record to support [the defendant's] proffered reason\ for terminating the plaintiffs employment
• noting that statistical evidence “in and of itself, rarely suffices to rebut an employer’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory rationale for its decision . . .”
• holding probationary state troopers are not similarly situated to non-probationary troopers
• “State actors may, however, treat dissimilarly situated people dissimilarly without running afoul of the protections afforded by the [Equal Protection Clause].”
• “State actors may, however, treat dissimilarly situated people dissimilarly without running afoul of the protections afforded by the [Equal Protection Clause].”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).