James W. Woodson v. Scott Paper Co.

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 Civil Rights Act of 1991’s addition of § 2000e-2(m)’s “motivating-factor” standard of causation does not apply to Title VII retaliation claims
• holding that “filing with the EEOC does not function as a filing for PHRA purposes”
• holding that in a retaliation case, the court must instruct the jury that the plaintiffs protected activity must have had “a determinative effect” on the employer’s decision
• concluding harmless error in a civil case requires only “a high probability that the error did not affect the outcome of the case”
• acknowledging that the McDonnell Douglas framework is appropriate for cases based on a “pretext” theory
• finding that a two-year gap between protected activity and retaliatory act was linked by a “pattern of antagonism”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).