James Reynolds v. Daniel M. Tangherlini

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his retaliation claim where his EEOC charge alleged only discrimination
• holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust his retaliation claim where his EEOC charge alleged only discrimination and hostile work environment
• holding that the procedure for exhaustion under the ADEA and Title VII is relevantly similar
• concluding that the plaintiff had failed to exhaust his retaliation claim where he 10 had “failed to provide minimally adequate factual specificity to allow the EEO office to conduct an investigation”
• holding alleged retaliatory con- duct that consisted of a hostile work environment occurring long before the adverse promotion decision was not “cognizable as retaliation for activity protected by Title VII”
• noting that we “have assumed that the federal‐sector provision of Title VII” prohibits retaliation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).