Clay 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.

• reaching same conclusion where “the parties agree[d]” that an individual defendant “was no longer an employee” when the EEOC charge was filed
• rejecting 15 argument that “simply using [the defendant’s] name in the EEOC charge sufficed”
• courts may be more inclined to view “procedural defect[s] with leniency” where a complainant has proceeded without the aid of counsel at the administrative stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).