Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Associates Consulting Engineers, P.C.

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that complaints do not satisfy the good faith, reasonable belief requirement when the complaints do not specify the unlawful employment practice alleged
• noting that the district court was “manifestly correct” to dismiss the plaintiff’s hostile work 11 environment claims based on a paramour preference
• finding that “[t]he amount of damages is invariably an individual 11 question” in “nearly all wage-and-hour class actions” and “does not defeat class action 12 treatment”
• finding that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that defendant would have understood her complaints—which included complaints of “harassment”—were about discrimination based on the plaintiff’s sex or some other trait
• noting that for a complaint to qualify as protected activity, the plaintiff must establish that the plaintiff possessed “a good faith, reasonable belief that the underlying challenged actions of the employer violated the law”
• stating that a plaintiff’s belief that the employer’s conduct that plaintiff opposed violated the law “is not reasonable simply because he or she complains of something that appears to be discrimination in some form”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).