Holcomb v. Iona College

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendant’s burden of production was “satisfied by the testimony of [decisionmakers] that they reached the decision [to terminate plaintiff] on race-neutral grounds”
• concluding that “where an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race”
• holding that a fact finder could infer that “Brennan, Petriccione, or both, played a meaningful role in the decision to terminate Holcomb.”
• holding that the court must view all facts “in the light most fa- vorable” to the non-moving party
• holding that the court must view all facts “in the light most favorable” to the non-moving party
• holding that “where an employee is subjected to adverse action because an employer disapproves of interracial association, the employee suffers discrimination because of the employee’s own race” (emphasis in original)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).