Erika Langenbach v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that negative performance reviews and PIPs alone are not materially adverse sufficient to qualify as adverse employment actions
• affirming summary judgment where the timing and pretext arguments relied on “unbridled speculation,” and the record presented a clear history of performance issues
• noting analysis for similarly situated employees under the direct method is substantially the same as the analysis under the indirect method
• affirming the district court’s grant of summary judgment for employer noting, in part, that negative performance reviews and performance improvement plans are not adverse employment actions
• describing cases where an employee's subjective belief that an employer took adverse employment action based on a protected category was insufficient to create an issue of material fact
• affirming summary judgment for employer on retaliation claim where plaintiff's arguments regarding 33 suspicious timing and pretext relied on “unbridled speculation,” and the record revealed a history of performance issues prior to her termination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).