George, Diane v. Leavitt, Michael

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the district court erred in requiring the plaintiff to show that he “was treated differently than similarly situated employees”
• holding that a jury could have found the employer’s proffered explanation “not worthy of credence” when it was contradicted by contemporaneous evidence from coworkers
• holding that “probationary employees and permanent employees are not similarly situated” because federal regulations permitted different standards for terminating probationary and permanent employees
• holding that, where record evidence specified the comparative alleged infractions of the relevant individuals, but where the accuracy of those allegations was in genuine dispute, a court may not grant summary judgment
• holding that plaintiff need not present evidence of differential treatment because “[e]limination of [employer’s legitimate] reasons . . . is sufficient, absent other explanation, to create an inference that the decision was a discriminatory one”
• stating that an isolated incident is not sufficient to raise a hostile work environment claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).