Judy Gordon v. United States Capitol Police

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that interference claims are “forward-looking[,]” as distinguished from “backward-looking” retaliation claims
• noting that a plaintiff “need not plead facts showing each of the[ ] elements [for a discrimination claim] in order to defeat a motion under Rule 12(b)(6
• noting that a plaintiff “need not plead facts showing each of the[ ] elements [for a discrimination claim] in order to defeat a motion under Rule 12(b)(6
• finding that the plaintiff’s travel expenses incurred as a result of alleged FMLA interference could qualify as prejudice
• observing that the court has “imported Title VIPs prima facie case and burden-shifting regime to the FMLA retaliation context”
• noting that the FMLA's anti-retaliation provision under § 2615(a)(2)\is intended to be construed in the same manner\ as Title VII's anti-retaliation provision (internal citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).