Jenkins, James Alan

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 suspicious timing of the termination,” which came one week after the protected activity, was evidence of pretext
• holding that a retaliation claim “require[s] proof that the protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action”
• holding that “the suspicious timing of the termination,” which came one week after the protected activity, was evidence of pretext
• holding that the district court erred by applying the circumstantial-evidence framework where the plaintiff presented direct evidence of discrimination, even though the plaintiff characterized her evidence as circumstantial
• holding that a grant of summary judgment under Rule 56 does not violate the Seventh Amendment even though it prevents the parties from having a jury rule upon the facts
• concluding that an employee's termination within a few days, or up to two weeks, of the protected activity can be circumstantial evidence of a causal connection and is a question for the jury

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).