Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiff had stated a prima facie case where court filings constituted protected activity of which defendant was aware
• excusing failure to exhaust because employee “claim[ed] that he ha[d] suffered retaliation because he pursued a discrimination charge”
• violations of protocol in defendant’s dealings with plaintiff “support a conclusion that [the defendant’s] asserted reason was actually a pretext”
• “I conclude that [plaintiff’s] September 2005 opposition to JIB's motion for summary judgment constituted the last protected activity . . . .”
• ‘[T]he causal connection needed for proof of a retaliation claim can be established indirectly by showing that the protected activity was closely followed in time by the adverse action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).