Barrett v. Vreeland

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the speakers’ status as plaintiff’s co-workers “is relevant in the context of Plaintiff’s discrimination claims” because “as Plaintiff’s co-workers, [they] never had any decision-making authority”
• finding that an increased workload was not an adverse employment action and collecting such cases
• finding that supervisors’ stray remarks could not “establish the inference of discrimination necessary for a prima facie hostile-work-environment claim” (italics omitted
• recognizing it as “important in hostile work environment cases to exclude from considerations [acts taken against the plaintiff] that lack a linkage or correlation to the claimed ground of discrimination”
• finding that a supervisors’ stray remarks could not “establish the inference of discrimination necessary for a prima facie hostile-work-environment claim” (italics omitted) (citing Danzer v. Norden Sys., Inc., 151 F.3d 50, 56 (2d Cir. 1998))
• noting that a document in the record that stated an incorrect date was “clearly a typographical error” in light of the balance of the record such that the court “corrected the typographical error in [its] discussion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).