Elion v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “me too” evidence was admissible because “[i]t is established that evidence of an employer’s past discriminatory or retaliatory behavior toward other employees may be relevant to whether an employer discriminated or retaliated against a plaintiff”
• noting that “‘[m]e too’ evidence of an employer’s past non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory behavior may be relevant” in Title VII action
• finding witness’s testimony admissible because the witness’s name had been provided in response to an interrogatory, putting the opposing party “on notice that [she] had discoverable information”
• finding witness’s testimony admissible because the witness’s name had been provided in response to an interrogatory, thereby putting the opposing party “on notice that [she] had discoverable information”
• finding prejudice because party could not prepare for testimony from previously undisclosed witness
• “Rule 26(b) thus imposed a duty on defendant to disclose Ms. Higgins’ identity in response to plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number 1(c), even if her testimony was intended to be used solely for impeachment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).