Debra v. Hook, an Individual v. Ernst & Young, a Partnership

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that offensive remarks, which were made by a decisionmaker during conversations that “had nothing to do with” the plaintiff’s job, were insufficient to show an adverse decision was tainted by bias
• noting that “a plaintiff whose employment position is eliminated in a . . . work force reduction carries a heavier burden in supporting charges of discrimination than does an employee discharged for other reasons”
• finding sexual comments by plaintiffs supervisor insufficient for a “mixed-motives” charge because they had nothing to do with plaintiffs job performance and were unrelated to the adverse decision process challenged in the case
• finding sexual comments by plaintiff's supervisor insufficient for a \mixed-motives\ charge because they had nothing to do with plaintiff's job performance and were unrelated to the adverse decision process challenged in the case
• refusing to apply retroactively the expansive causation standard of section 107 of the 1991 Act
• refusing to apply retroactively the expansive causation standard of section 107 of the 1991 Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).