Barrett v. CHREKY

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no 28 violation of the sham-affidavit rule because the plaintiff did not “directly contradict herself” in her supplemental affidavit
• accepting contradicting affidavit even though plaintiffs only explanation for the contradictory testimony is that “she had simply forgotten, [at the time of the deposition], the most recent incident” of sexual harassment
• dismissing plaintiff’s voluntarily withdrawn claims at summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).