Hopkins v. Grant Thornton International Inc.

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 “perfect storm” of non-retaliatory events, as opposed to retaliation for engaging in protected activity, led to alleged adverse employment action
• plaintiff alleged that he “was terminated because he requested FMLA leave” (quoting Am. Compl. Count 1, ¶ 32)
• “Rights to FMLA leave . . . do not protect an employee’s job against a legitimate, unrelated, reason for separation from employment.” (emphasis added) (citing cases from the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits)
• “[U]nder 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1) ‘the Act’s prohibition against ‘interference’ prohibits an employer from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise FMLA rights,’ see 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).