Carolyn S. Watts v. The Kroger Company Arthur Bullington, the Kroger Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that for a Title VII claim, the decisionmaker could not have retaliated because it “did not know” that employee “had engaged in protected activity”
• holding that as a matter of law, the defendant could not retaliate against the plaintiff “because [the defendant] did not know [the plaintiff] had engaged in a protected activity”
• recognizing that an employee’s complaint to the manager regarding her supervisor’s comments did not satisfy the protected activity as required for her Title VII retaliation claim because the employee did not report any sexual harassment in that complaint
• holding that expansion of plaintiffs duties as a member of the produce department to include mopping the floor, cleaning the chrome, and requiring her to check with her supervisor before taking breaks did not constitute tangible employment actions
• concluding decisionmaker could not have retaliated based on protected activity of which it was unaware
• concluding decisionmaker could not have retaliated based on protected activity of which it was unaware

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).