Arizanovska v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that disparate treatment among employees within the same protected class cannot give rise to an inference of discrimination
• holding that being forced to take an unpaid leave of absence falls into the category of materially adverse employment actions that impact an employee’s current wealth
• holding, in the context of a retaliation claim, that “[b]eing forced to take an unpaid leave of absence” is an adverse employment action
• holding, in 34 the context of a retaliation claim, that “[b]eing forced to take an unpaid leave of absence” is an adverse employment action
• noting that the “similarly-situated” inquiry “at least requires that the plaintiff name a comparator outside [his] protected class”
• “Being forced to take an unpaid leave of absence certainly falls into the first category of material adverse employment actions.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).