Eston v. Van Bolt

How courts have described this case

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

• finding lack of evidence that employer knew or should have known of employees’ “propensity for tortious conduct” where, among other things, the plaintiff did not report the employees’ prior conduct to “anyone associated with [the employer]”
• \ Section 1981 and FEPA claims of discrimination are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII.\
• “Section 1981. . . claims of discrimination are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII.”
• “Section 1981 and FEPA claims of discrimination are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII.”
• “[M]FEPA claims of discrimination are analyzed under the same framework as Title VII.”
• “Courts will reconsider an interlocutory order in the following situations: (1) there has been an intervening change in controlling law; (2) there is additional evidence that was not previously available; or (3) the prior decision was based on clear error or would work manifest injustice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).