Fox v. Eagle Distributing Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “Title VII's anti- retaliation provision is similar in relevant respects to the ADEA's anti-retaliation provision”
• holding that the plaintiff’s actions did not constitute protected activity where “the record [did] not contain any evidence that [the plaintiff] specifically alleged discriminatory employment practices in the [complaint made to his manager]”
• holding that a complaint was not protected activity because “there [was] simply no evidence in the record that [the plaintiff] told [his manager] that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his age” (emphasis added)
• holding that an employee did not engage in protected activity where “there [was] simply no evidence in the record that [plaintiff] told [his manager] that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his [protected characteristic]”
• holding an employee’s allegation that manager is a racist was not protected activity under the ADEA as it was too vague to constitute opposition
• finding that the plaintiff did not engage in protected activity because his statements to his manager were too ambiguous to amount to opposition of an unlawful employment practice

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).