Giles v. Transit Employees Federal Credit Union

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff “cannot create a dis pute of material fact by distorting testimony and then complaining of a lack of documentation” when documentary evidence in record contradicted plaintiffs otherwise uncorroborated statement
• noting that positive performance assessment was of “exceptionally limited relevance” because it was not communicated to decisionmakers
• explaining that plaintiff must show she “suffered an adverse employment action because of [her] disability” (quoting Duncan v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 240 F.3d 1110, 1114 (D.C. Cir. 2001))
• holding in the analogous disability-discrimination context, that notwithstanding possibility that a jury could reasonably disbelieve the employer’s proffered reason, no reasonable jury could conclude the employer took the adverse employment action because of the employee’s disability
• emphasizing the difference between evidence from which a reasonable jury could disbelieve an employer’s proffered reasons and evidence supporting the plaintiff’s argument that the adverse action was taken for an impermissible reason
• “[T]he plaintiff’s attack on the employer’s explanation must always be assessed in the light of the total circumstances of the case.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).