Bauer v. 7-Eleven, Inc.

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 single instance of contact—concerning the employee’s time off—is a “de minimis request [that] does not rise to the level of actionable interference”
• finding one instance where the employer initiated contact as not rising to the level of actionable interference
• “Groening has failed to show that the board interfered with her leave by requiring her to work.”
• upholding district court's allowing plaintiff to proceed on FMLA retaliation claim based on an alleged constructive discharge
• addressing interference by retaliation claim and noting that plaintiff is still required to establish that employer took adverse employment action against her and that “Wysong did not create a category of “retaliation-lite” claims”
• addressing interference by retaliation claim and noting that plaintiff is still required to establish that employer took adverse employment action against her and that “Wysong did not create a category of “retaliation-lite” claims”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).