James MORROW and John Thalacker, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting overlap between another element of the prima facie case and pretext
• employees who are the subject of sexual-harassment complaints are not similarly situated to employees against whom no such complaint was made
• “Hearsay is inadmissible in summary judgment proceedings to the same extent that it is inadmissible in a trial”
• plaintiff not similarly situated to comparator because plaintiff was accused of sexual harassment while comparator wasn’t
• violation of company’s sexual harassment policy was legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating plaintiffs
• violation of company’s sexual harassment policy was legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Rankins

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).