Danita Walker v. Jeh Johnson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that certain employees were improper comparators because they belonged the plaintiff’s protected class
• holding that three-month time lapse was too long to support inference of retaliation
• stating that the plaintiff’s “own 23 personal opinion is inadequate by itself to create an issue for the jury” (citation omitted)
• explaining that retaliation claims and discrimination claims are both analyzed under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas
• noting that a plaintiff may rely on any “relevant evidence that a jury could reasonably conclude evinces an illicit motive”
• stating that the plaintiff’s “own 23 personal opinion is inadequate by itself to create an issue for the jury” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).