James v. Wetzel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employee’s OADA claim failed for the same reasons her Title VII discrimination claim failed
• holding that circumstances surrounding a plaintiff's termination did not give rise to an inference of discrimination, because she did not present evidence “either direct or circumstantial, supporting a claim of animus”
• finding that the plaintiff’s gender and age discrimination claims under the OADA failed for the same reasons her Title VII and ADEA discrimination claims failed
• explaining that a plaintiff must “demonstrate that, but for her protected activity, she would not have faced the alleged adverse employment action.”
• acknowledging that the Tenth Circuit has used different versions of the prima facie test, but stating that it has “express[ed] a preference for more concise formulations.” (citations omitted)
• acknowledging that the Tenth Circuit has used different versions of the prima facie test, but stating that it has “express[ed] a preference for more concise formulations.” (citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).