Barbara Davidson v. Midelfort Clinic, Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a causal nexus between protected activity and adverse action can be established by showing that \the employer’s adverse action follows fairly soon after the employee’s protected expression\
• finding that a decision to discharge an employee was not tainted by discriminatory animus because, inter alia, “criticism [of the employee] was aired long before” his discharge
• finding that a decision to discharge an employee was not tainted by discriminatory animus because, inter alia, \criticism [of the employee] was aired long before\ his discharge
• acknowledging that attention deficit disorder (“ADD”) could qualify as an impairment under the ADA, but plaintiff failed to show that her ADD substantially limited a major life activity
• noting that the plaintiff must show “a record reflecting the kind of impairment that would impose a substantial limitation on one or more of the plaintiff's major life activities”
• timing does not create inference of retaliation where adverse action occurred one year after filing of discrimination charge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).