Helm v. Kansas

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding it was “entirely reasonable” not to investigate allegations of sexual harassment when the plaintiff told her employer she “did not wish to pursue her complaint”
• ruling parties cannot overcome presumption against sealing simply by showing records are subject to protective order
• noting that “[t]he contours of the alter-ego theory are not well defined” and that “virtually every case addressing the alter-ego issue has arisen in the corporate context”
• explaining that a party seeking to seal “must articulate a real and substantial interest that justifies depriving the public of access to the records that inform [the court’s] decision-making process”
• holding under the corrective action prong that plaintiff’s reports that her supervising judge had “done something inappropriate” and “made her feel uncomfortable” without any details or mention of sexual harassment didn’t constitute adequate notice
• requiring a “strong causal nexus between the supervisor’s harassment and the tangible employment action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).