Collette v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Title VII plaintiff had engaged in protected activity by complaining that her employer’s failure to post job openings, which violated federal regulations, disadvantaged non-Jewish applicants
• noting that a state law stripping a federal court of jurisdiction over a federal claim would raise “constitutional doubts”
• dismissing disparate impact claim for failure to allege “any specific employment policy or practice which might be actionable under Title VII”
• discriminatory conduct is a wrong that is distinguishable from the rights and remedies that relate to whistleblowing
• plaintiff did not waive discrimination claims by bringing Section 740 claim, although “the very same actions” gave rise to both those claims and her Section 740 claim
• “None of the cases adopting the ‘course of conduct’ test stand for the proposition that a federal claim can be barred by resort to asserting a whistleblower claim under state law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).