Calero-Cerezo v. United States Department of Justice

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the district court erred in granting the employer’s summary judgment motion because the “factfinder might well conclude that, in the face of plaintiff’s increasingly desperate requests for an accommodation, the defendants simply stonewalled”
• noting that the burden to establish a prima facie case in the context of retaliation in not “an onerous one” (citation omitted)
• dismissal of ADA claim had no effect on scope of remedy because Rehabilitation Act claim remained
• dismissal of ADA claim had no effect on scope of remedy because Rehabilitation Act claim remained
• dismissal of ADA claim had no effect on scope of remedy because RA claim remained
• \Three- and four-month periods have been held insufficient to establish a causal connection based on temporal proximity.\ (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).