Carter-Obayuwana v. Howard University

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “the same analysis is employed” under the DCHRA’s prohibition against retaliatory employer conduct as under Title VII’s opposition clause”
• rejecting trial court’s assumptions that plaintiff was not engaged in protected activity under Title VII until she filed a complaint with D.C. Office of Human Rights
• reviewing a Title VII case and noting at the outset that “[s]tate courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over civil actions brought pursuant to Title VII”
• concluding two days was sufficient
• testimony that plaintiff repeatedly complained of retaliatory treatment in the days immediately prior to receiving a reduction in salary was sufficient to establish a causal connection

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).