Hinds v. Sprint/United Management Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that emails sent to the defendant regarding retaliation were not protected opposition because the plaintiff did not mention age or age discrimination
• recognizing that a pattern of retaliatory conduct commencing within three months of protected activity may qualify as temporally proximate
• holding that plaintiff advancing retaliation claim “must first come forward with evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could conclude that those who decided to fire him had knowledge of his protected activity”
• concluding that a period of more than three months between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a causal connection
• holding that emails sent to the defendant regarding retaliation for giving negative evaluations and criticizing internal policies were not protected opposition because the plaintiff did not mention age or age discrimination
• holding that to qualify as protected opposition, the employee need not use any “magic words” but must convey her concern that the employer has engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice; “[g]eneral complaints . . . will not suffice[]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).