Conroy v. Vilsack

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that temporal proximity of one and a half months may establish causation on its own, while three months likely will not
• holding that discrepancies in the panel members’ evaluation criteria were “minor” and “insufficient to demonstrate pretext” especially where panel members were not final decisionmakers
• finding that procedural irregularities did not directly and uniquely disadvantage the plaintiff where the employer had discretion as to what procedures to follow
• noting that inconsistencies and contradictions in the agency’s proffered explanation can support a determination of pretext
• stating that “the court correctly looked to whether [a particular topic] was ‘within the reasonable confines’ of [the expert’s] expertise”
• finding that plaintiff’s concededly greater technical skills alone did not create an overwhelming disparity in qualifications to establish a pretext

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).