In re Ostermayer

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s 5 complaints about unprofessional conduct, such as inappropriate conversations regarding 6 girlfriends and infidelity, does not constitute protected activity
• finding that a 25 plaintiff’s complaints to her supervisors regarding unprofessional treatment were not 26 protected activities under FEHA because the complaints were not related to unlawful 27 employment practices or discriminatory treatment
• noting that “the Ninth Circuit has held that gaps of one to three months between a 6 plaintiff’s protected activity and a defendant’s adverse employment action can give rise to 7 an inference of causation”
• finding that 11 the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation where the 12 plaintiff “has adduced no evidence that she complained to her supervisors, 13 or anyone else, regarding defendants’ alleged gender discrimination”
• collecting cases in which several 10 courts held that a violation of company policies is a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason 11 for termination
• noting that a “period of a 25 year and a half qualifies as a ‘short period of time’” between hiring and firing an employee such 26 that it led to a strong interference that the defendant’s decision to terminate the plaintiffs was not 27 discriminatory

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).