Clarke v. DynCorp International LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a “lapse of as little as two months between the protected activity and an adverse employment action” weakens the inference of causality
• “[A] lapse of as little as two months between the protected activity and an adverse employment action is sufficiently long so as to weaken significantly the inference of causation.”
• “[A] lapse of as little as two months between the protected activity and an adverse employment action is ‘sufficiently long so as to weaken significantly the inference of causation.’”
• “[A] lapse of as little as two months between the protected activity and an adverse employment action is sufficiently long so as to weaken significantly the inference of causation.”
• “Because Clarke failed to file a civil suit during the 90-day period indicated in the right-to-sue letter issued in response to his 2006 charge of discrimination, he cannot now make claims based on the allegations in that charge.”
• “[A] lapse of as little as two months between the protected activity and an adverse employment action is ‘sufficiently long so as to weaken significantly the inference of causation.’” (quoting King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 151 n.5 (4th Cir. 2003))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Other cases named Clarke v. DynCorp International LLC

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

• Clarke v. DynCorp International LLC
  Fourth Circuit· 2015-08-12