Keri Henthorn v. Capitol Communications, Inc., Doing Business as Woi-Tv Channel 5 Jim Parker

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \a claim of quid pro quo harassment often adds little to a straightforward Title VII analysis\
• explaining that “[c]onduct ‘must be extreme and not merely rude or unpleasant’ before it can be said to have, in an objective sense, affected the terms and conditions of employment”
• explaining that “[c]onduct ‘must be extreme and not merely rude or unpleasant’ before it can be said to have, in an objective sense, affected the terms and conditions of employment”
• noting that even where an employee felt “overly scrutinized,” because “the terms and conditions of her employment did not change” and she “continued to receive the same salary and was given the same responsibilities,” there was no adverse employment action
• “Sexual harassment is quid pro quo if a tangible employment action follows the employee’s refusals to submit to a supervisor’s sexual demands.”
• “Only admissible evidence may be used to defeat [a summary judgment motion], and affidavits must be based on personal knowledge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).