Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that party represented by same counsel had “abandoned” claim by failing to raise it in his opening brief
• holding that the plaintiffs’ claims merely alleging they were “denied promotions and treated differently” than others similarly situated because of race “epitomizes speculation”
• holding that similar statements “epitomize[] speculation and therefore do[] not amount to a short and plain statement of [the] claim under Rule 8(a)”
• holding that hiring decisions were “discrete acts of discrimination” that could not go forward under the continuing-violation doctrine
• concluding that employer’s refusal to promote plaintiffs to vacant supervisory positions, denial of their requests for light work assignments, and alleged retaliation against them for filing EEOC charges constituted discrete acts
• concluding that employer’s refusal to promote plaintiffs to vacant supervisory positions, denial of their requests for light work assignments, and alleged retaliation against them for filing EEOC charges constituted discrete acts

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).