Joseph Succar v. Dade County School Board

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[p]ersonal animosity is not the equivalent of sex discrimination.... The plaintiff cannot turn a personal feud into a sex discrimination case....”
• reiterating that harassment is \because of\ gender only when the harassment is motivated by gender
• stating that “[p]ersonal animosity is not the equivalent of [] discrimination,” and that a plaintiff “cannot turn a personal feud into a [] discrimination case.”
• holding the “harassment... was motivated not by his male gender, but rather by [the former lover’s] contempt for [plaintiff] following their failed relationship; [plaintiffs] gender was merely coincidental.”
• stating that “[p]ersonal animosity is not the equivalent of sex [or race] discrimination,” and that a plaintiff “cannot turn a personal feud into a sex [or race] discrimination case.”
• holding the “harassment . . . was motivated not by his male gender, but rather by [the former lover’s] contempt for 16 [plaintiff] following their failed relationship; [plaintiff’s] gender was merely coincidental.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).