Howard University v. Green

How courts have described this case

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

• holding plaintiff did not engage in protected activity when she complained of workplace favoritism, and only later claimed sexual orientation discrimination
• explaining that a complaint alleging favoritism but not explaining that it was the result of sexual orientation discrimination was insufficient notice of the nature of the claim of discrimination
• finding that plaintiff had failed to establish that she had engaged in protected activity where there was “nothing in the record to suggest that the [employer] was alerted that [plaintiff] was actually complaining of sexual orientation discrimination”
• examining employees’ complaints to their superiors at Howard University to determine whether these complaints were protected
• noting Title VII case law is instructive for DCHRA retaliation claims
• “[T]he communication of a complaint of unlawful discrimination, in a given set of factual circumstances, may be inferred or implied[.]” (citation and emphasis omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).