In the Interest of A.L., L.L., P.H., and B.H., Minor Children, H.H., Mother

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff must satisfy the same four elements for a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII
• noting that the university first “summoned Menaker to a meeting” shortly “after receiving the July 2016 Kaplan Letter”
• noting that Title VII caselaw informs Title IX claims and that Title IX bars university discipline where gender is a motivating factor
• finding that the first three requirements were met with respect to the gender discrimination claim of a male tennis coach who was terminated by his university-employer
• noting that the holding of Columbia University and its progeny are “not limited to Title IX claims rather than Title VII claims” because courts “apply similar principles in both Title VII and Title IX when seeking to identify discriminatory intent”
• considering a gender discrimination claim and explaining that the ultimate question is whether the plaintiff’s gender was a motivating factor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).