Elliott Electric Supply, Inc. v. Veep Electric Service, Inc. (Appeal from Madison Circuit Court: CV-22-900109).

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that three weeks between the plaintiff’s protected activity and his failure to receive a permanent position “may suffice” to show causation for a prima facie case, but was not enough to show pretext
• stating that federal courts do not “sit as super-personnel departments” to review employers’ business decisions (quotation omitted)
• noting that temporal proximity alone is generally insufficient to create a genuine factual dispute on a retaliation claim
• stating that federal courts do not “sit as super-personnel departments” to review employers’ business decisions (quotation omitted)
• stating that prima facie PDA claim requires a plaintiff to show that “[she] was qualified for the position for which the employer was accepting applications”
• holding that a comment by a director with hiring authority that “black people are expected to leave their blackness behind” was not direct evidence without some context to show a link between the comment and the decision not to hire the employee

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).