Kidwell v. Eisenhauer

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a five-week gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action “militate[s] against allowing an inference of causation based on suspicious timing”
• holding that “a technical violation of policy was insufficient to give rise to an inference of a retaliatory motive”
• concluding that a five-week gap between the protected activity and the adverse employment action “militate[s] against allowing an inference of causation based on suspicious timing”
• holding that “a technical violation of policy was insufficient to give rise to an inference of a retaliatory motive”
• concluding that five-week lapse alone does not support inference of cau- sation
• holding that Kidwell’s admission of fault undercut an inference of retaliation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).