Herman I. TAITT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHEMICAL BANK, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• reversing defense verdict on retaliation claim and finding that causality for retaliation claim “can be proven indirectly by pointing to similar disparate treatment of fellow employees engaged in similar activities”
• “The elements required to make out a claim of retaliatory discharge under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 are the same as those required to make out such a claim under Title VII.”
• no “smoking gun” direct evidence of animus required at summary judgment stage
• “We do not suggest that [the plaintiff’s] evidence of retaliatory treatment is strong or uncontradicted. Nevertheless, we cannot agree ... that the evidence is so weak that a reasonable jury could not return a verdict in [Plaintiff’s] favor.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).