Camille Grosdidier v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that even if the plaintiff were given a favorable inference because of spoliation, “other evidence” in the record prevented the plaintiff from surmounting summary judgment
• explaining that a factfinder can draw a negative inference against a party that destroys relevant evidence it was supposed to maintain
• explaining that, if “the employee-plaintiff . . . [has] a good faith and reasonable belief that the [employer’s] practices are unlawful,” her “opposition activity may be protected even though the employer’s practices do not amount to a violation of Title VII”
• granting summary judgment for the defendant where, although the plaintiff “had more experience as an editor,” “the evidence . . . showed that [the selected candidate] had more internet and television broadcasting experience”
• allowing a weak adverse inference where other evidence of the employer’s reasoning survived
• affirming 15 summary judgment for employer on hostile-work-environment retaliation claim where “there was no evidence from which to find that a reasonable employee could have believed” that the practices she complained of were unlawful under Title VII

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).