Goodrick v. Carlin

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 “vague charge of discrimination in [[the employee’s] internal letter] is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice”
• determining that district court properly granted summary judgment because plaintiff’s letter was not protected activity where it contained vague charge of unequal treatment
• finding that a long letter containing only passing references to protected activities under Title VII was really “contesting the correctness of a decision made by his employer” rather than asserting discrimination.
• rejecting claim that a letter with vague references about unhappy Caucasian employees constituted protected activity
• affirming district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant because plaintiff’s letter including vague charge of unequal treatment was not protected activity
• rejecting claim that letter sent preceding retaliation constituted protected activity where letter made vague references to unhappiness among Caucasian employees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).