Janet Marie Hill v. St. Louis University

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the district court ordered various sanctions when counsel engaged in ex parte communication with a represented adverse party despite warnings not to
• noting that the anti-discrimination laws, do not prohibit unsound business practices and unwise personnel decisions that do not evince a discriminatory animus
• affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of employer where plaintiff's evidence failed to raise an inference of discriminatory intent
• interpreting Rule 4.2 of the Missouri Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct in a manner identical to the interpretation adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court
• acknowledging the MHRA’s jurisdictional bar where the plaintiff failed to timely file her administrative claim
• explaining burden-shifting analysis applicable to sex and age discrimination cases; Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act do not prohibit employment decisions based on poor job performance or “unsound business practices”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).