Elana Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free School District, John J. Russell, Anne Brennan, Marilyn Wishnie

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that claims premised on Price Waterhouse sex stereotyping theory sufficiently constitute claim of sex discrimination pursuant to § 1983
• holding that comments made about a woman’s inability to combine work and motherhood constitute sex stereotyping that provides evidence of discriminatory intent
• holding that a plaintiff must show the personal involvement of each defendant to succeed on a § 1983 claim
• holding that stereotypical remarks “‘can certainly be evidence that gender played a part’ in an employment decision” (emphasis omitted) (citing Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 251)
• holding that individual defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity because it was “eminently clear” by 2001 that “individuals have a constitutional right to be free from sex discrimination”
• holding that employee had produced sufficient evidence to defeat summary judgment where supervisors told working mother that she could be a good mother or a good employee, but not both

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).