Diggs v. Potter

How courts have described this case

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

• relying on Keeley without addressing the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Burlington Northern
• “[T]his Court does not sit as a ‘super-personnel department that [re]examines an entity’s business decisions,’ even in termination cases.”
• “Under Title VII [and related anti-discrimination statutes], the two essential elements of a discrimination claim are that (i) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (ii
• “Under Title VII [and related anti-discrimination statutes], the two essential elements of a discrimination claim are that (i) the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action (ii
• employees are similarly situated only where a plaintiff demonstrates that “all of the relevant aspects of [his] employment situation were ‘nearly identical’ to those of [his comparables]”
• finding “no adverse action” in light of defendant’s remedial activities

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).