Gallegos-Rosales v. Gonzales

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that temporal proximity was insufficient to support the plaintiff's retaliation claim where there was a five-month interval between the plaintiff's complaint with the EEOC and the alleged adverse employment action
• holding that temporal proximity was insufficient to support the plaintiff's retaliation claim where there was a five-month interval between the plaintiff's complaint with the EEOC and the alleged adverse employment action
• finding that the “causal connection needed for a prima facie case can . . . be ‘established . . . by showing that the protected activity was closely followed in time by the adverse action.’” (quoting Lovejoy-Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel Inc., 263 F.3d 208, 224 (2d Cir. 2001))
• Chamberlin's assignment to unit 4CD—occurred five months after the filing of the second EEOC complaint, an interval the district court properly concluded was not “close.”
• “[W]e do not believe that [plaintiff’s] exclusion from volunteering to take on an unassigned duty would have dissuaded a reasonable worker from bringing a discrimination charge.”
• gap of five months between protected activity and supposed retaliation too long

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).