Dr. Joy HOCHSTADT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORCESTER FOUNDATION FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that disruptive <br>employee \went beyond the scope of protected opposition\ in light <br>of employer's interest in \maintaining a harmonious and congenial <br>working environment\
• holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, “[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored”
• holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, “[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored”
• noting that \section 704(a) clearly does protect an employee against discharge for filing complaints in good faith before federal and state agencies\
• noting that an employee who feels that his employer has violated his rights “may pursue specific state and federal legal remedies for discrimination and need not rely on vigorous internal action directed against the employer”
• requiring plaintiff to show “that her discharge followed her protected activities within such period of time that the court can infer retaliatory motivation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).