Bennett v. Solis

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the fact that the plaintiff and the proposed comparator had difference titles and different GS levels “tends toward a finding that the two weren’t similarly situated”
• opining that “all of this is illegal because testing is not mandatory”
• “[S]elf-serving statement[s] . . . without substantiation [ ] do[] not create an issue of material fact.”
• \[S]elf-serving statement[s] ... without substantiation [ ] do[ ] not create an issue of material fact.\
• finding comparator not similarly situated where comparator held a different position
• agency entitled to summary judgment despite subjective considerations where agency also presented “legitimate and non-discriminatory reason” for adverse employment action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).