Carolyn Carter v. University of Toledo

How courts have described this case

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

• assuming that the plaintiff met her initial burden by establishing a prima facie case for her Title VII discrimination claim
• “Being a direct decision-maker, of course, constitutes strong proof that a statement was made within the scope of employment, but the ‘scope of employment’ criterion extends beyond direct decision-makers.”
• direct warnings to visiting professor by vice provost that university’s decisionmakers were “a bunch of racists” and “trying to get rid of the black professors” held admissible
• comments made to Carter by vice-provost that dean of college “was trying to get rid of the black professors” were within the scope of the vice-provost’s job to oversee the university’s affirmative action programs
• statements by Vice Provost of university defendant that attributed a failure to rehire the plaintiff to racial animus were not direct evidence of discrimination because the Vice Provost was not a decision maker as to the plaintiffs rehire

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).