Coppinger-Martin v. Solis

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the statute of limitations began to run when the complainant learned of her actual injury, i.e., the decision to terminate her employment
• noting that “contributing factor” is a more lenient standard, but explaining that “the contributing factor that an employee must prove is intentional retaliation prompted by the employee engaging in a protected activity”
• noting that “contributing factor” is a more lenient standard, but explaining that “the contributing factor that an employee must prove is intentional retaliation prompted by the employee engaging in a protected activity”
• interpreting the similarly structured whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
• a 4 claim accrues when the plaintiff “learns of the ‘actual injury’ . . . and not when the plaintiff 5 suspects a ‘legal wrong’”
• SOX claim accrued when complainant “learned of the 8 actual injury, i.e., that [complainant’s employer] had decided to terminate her employment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).