Bryant v. CEO DeKalb Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an argument under McDonnell Douglas was for- feited by failing to raise it in the district court
• holding that an issue was not properly before us where plaintiffs “failed to raise the issue before the district court”
• holding that a county official was engaged in legislative activity when he developed and drafted a budget that would be submitted to county legislators for enactment
• holding that pretext must be shown by specific facts rather than conclusory assertions
• holding that a question of “issue preclusion” was “inextricably intertwined” with qualified-immunity issues “because resolution of the preclusion issue in favor of the defendants w[ould] necessarily dispense of any need to pass on the immunity issues”
• holding that a retaliation claim under USCA11 Case: 21-10638 Date Filed: 07/05/2022 Page: 3 of 11 21-10638 Opinion of the Court 3 § 1981 is analyzed under the same framework as a retaliation claim under Title VII

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).