Hajjar-Nejad v. George Washington University

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that allegedly discriminatory statements attributed to a university official were not direct evidence because the official “was not a decision-maker in Plaintiffs dismissal ... [or] in any of the decisions that Plaintiff alleges were discriminatory”
• finding that an individual’s remark that he would not “dine with [Plaintiff’s] kind” was ambiguous
• stating that an adverse action is one that changes “status as a student or materially altered the . . . privileges he enjoyed as a student”
• “[C]ourts have concluded that, particularly for medical students, professional comportment issues fall under the umbrella of deference to academic decisions.”
• “[A] Plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the allegations in h[er] Complaint to create a genuine issue of material fact at the summary judgment stage.”
• “[A] Plaintiff is not entitled to rely on the allegations in h[er] Complaint to create a genuine issue of material fact at the summary judgment stage.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).