Joyce Whitaker v. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin

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 plaintiff was allowed at the summary judgment stage to “offer[] an alternative legal characterization” of the facts she pled in her complaint
• holding that a plaintiff may present a new legal theory at summary judgment if the pleaded factual allegations in the complaint support that theory
• holding that while “new factual bases for claims or legal claims” are not permitted in response to summary judgment, a “new characterization” of existing facts is
• holding that district court erred by declining to consider a plaintiff’s new legal theory at summary judgment when the new theory did not alter a complaint’s factual basis
• holding that courts “cannot consider” matters “outside the scope of [the] EEOC charge”
• holding that plaintiffs cannot amend their complaints at the summary judgment stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).