Florance v. Twichell

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that a defendant was not the plaintiff’s employer for purposes of Title VII and the ADA where the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendant could “fire, assign, or supervise [the] [p]laintiff”
• finding that a defendant was not the plaintiff’s employer for purposes 12 The Court notes that Plaintiff’s EEOC charge alleges that she was “on duty as an employee of CMC at WCCF.” (Dkt. No. 16-3, ¶ 14
• dismissing Title VII disparate treatment claims because \Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was similarly situated in all material respects to the male employees she identifies\
• finding a document not incorporated by reference because “the Amended Complaint mentions the interaction with Mr. Gilmartin (one of the Defendant's managers at JFK
• dismissing ADA retaliation claim because the \time between the alleged violation ... and Plaintiff's termination ... fails to allow the Court to draw a connection between\ the protected activity and the adverse employment action
• dismissing Title VII disparate treatment claims because “Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was similarly situated in all material respects to the male employees she identifies”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).