Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Eleventh Circuit· 4/17/2012

Holland v. Gee

Citations

  • 677 F.3d 1047
  • 2012 WL 1292342

How courts have described this case

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

  • noting that a permanent reassignment with “significantly different duties” and a reduction in both prestige and responsibility would suffice (emphasis added)
  • providing that to show pretext, a plaintiff “cannot recast the reason but must meet it head on and rebut it” (quotation marks omitted)
  • explaining that to demonstrate pretext, a plaintiff “can- not recast the reason but must meet it head on and rebut it”
  • concluding decisionmaker’s false denial that he knew plaintiff was pregnant could lead a jury to make an adverse credibility determination and find pregnancy was a motivating factor for termination
  • finding that transfer to less technical and more administrative role was adverse
  • affirming the jury’s finding that a transfer constituted an adverse action because there was sufficient evidence that “the transfer was a permanent reassignment with significantly different duties.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Martin, Hill, Ebel

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

40 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

33 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Holland v. Gee

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.