KAREN VAN ZANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES; And Kenneth Hasan King, Defendants-Appellees

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff “cannot fairly characterize . . . occasional nastiness” as “an adverse employment decision or action disadvantaging [plaintiff], which is a prerequisite for a retaliation claim”
• requiring that a plaintiff seeking to demonstrate pretext produce something more “than conclusory allegations”
• affirming grant of summary judgment where plaintiff’s retaliation claim was supported only by conelusory allegations
• stating in dicta that the continuing violation exception applies when there is evidence of an ongoing discriminatory practice \such as the use of discriminatory seniority lists or employment tests\
• describing an investigation that was completed from start to finish, including interviews, in four days
• affirming summary judgment dismissal where employer offered “valid, unrebutted reasons for its actions” and plaintiff “put forward nothing other than eonclusory allegations to suggest a causal relationship” between harassment complaints and negative evaluations or her termination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).