Karen Laughlin v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Augustus Melton, Jr.

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 opposition clause does not protect a secretary’s removal and mailing of confidential documents from her employer’s desk
• holding that a district court did not abuse its discretion by converting motion with alternative caption because parties were on notice that it could be disposed of as motion for summary judgment
• concluding that the plaintiff’s provision of “sensitive personnel documents” was unreasonable and therefore not protected activity
• holding that a court need not “notify parties of the obvious”
• explaining that “[b]ased upon the caption alone, [the plaintiff] was on notice that this motion might be treated as one for summary judgment”
• explaining that “[b]ased upon the caption alone, [the plaintiff] was on notice that this motion might be treated as one for summary judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).