Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that when working conditions are intolerable, an employee need not remain in them and attempt to resolve them in order to recover for constructive discharge
• explaining that “[a] showing of evil motive or actual malice is also required” in a claim for punitive damages under the DCHRA
• explaining that when working conditions are intolerable, an employee need not remain in them and attempt to resolve them in order to recover for constructive discharge
• explaining that, in interpreting the anti-retaliation statute in the DCHRA, “we look for guidance” to “the analogous anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act”
• finding plaintiff had been constructively discharged as part of her discrimination claim under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act
• permitting, given the text and legislative history of the DCHRA, punitive damages not available under Title VII

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).