Gary Hamilton v. Timothy Geithner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a two-month gap between the employee’s protected activity and the employer’s adverse, action was sufficiently brief to support an inference of retaliation
• holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies where his “formal EEO complaint ma[de] no mention” of the challenged action.
• recognizing that inconsistent application of criteria or post hoc rationales may be indicative of pretext
• holding that an absence of contemporaneous documentation of the defendant's proffered explanation, \could lead a reasonable jury to doubt the [defendant's] explanation\
• holding that missing documentation of an interviewing panel’s deliberations, coupled with a missing page of interview notes, could lead a reasonable jury to doubt the employer’s interview-based explanation
• holding that a complainant “cannot rely on the EEO counseling report to establish exhaustion of a claim that he failed to include in his formal complaint”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).