Harnan v. University of St. Thomas

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, where the plaintiff-employee complained in June 2009 but was not terminated until August 2009, the “temporal proximity without additional evidence supporting a finding of retaliatory animus [was] insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact”
• finding a one-month timespan between protected activity and the preparation of a termination notice insufficient to establish causation in an MWA claim
• finding a one- month timespan between protected activity and the preparation of a termination notice insufficient to establish causation in an MWA claim
• interpreting Minnesota law and ruling a temporal proximity between a report and termination of two months, alone, is not enough to show causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).