Happel v. Walmart Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the district court to exclude a portion of expert testimony that it deemed unreliable
• affirming exclusion of expert where he ruled out causes based “solely on his past experience and the temporal proximity”
• “Essential to any discrimination claim is that the plaintiff suffered a legally sufficient adverse employment action.”
• “The sanction for failure to comply with this rule is the ‘automatic and mandatory’ exclusion from trial of the omitted evidence, ‘unless non-disclosure was justified or harmless.’” (quoting Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852, 869 (7th Cir. 2005)
• “[M]inor changes in job responsibilities typically are not actionable.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).