Lamarce Tart and David Curtis v. Illinois Power Company and Rauly Law

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that reassignment was action- able for a discrimination claim where new duties “were objectively inferior; they involved far less skill and signifi- cantly harsher working conditions than the plaintiffs’ prior positions” (emphases added)
• explaining that adverse employment actions include “reduc[ing] the employee’s career prospects,” or “objectively creating a hardship” for the employee
• noting that “title change and different reporting relationship” may be “largely semantic ‘where the employee’s salary, benefits, and level of responsibility would remain unchanged’” (citation omitted)
• adding that no one had ever been fired for switching leaded and lead-free solders
• “Once a jury has spoken, we are obliged to construe the facts in favor of the parties who prevailed under the verdict.”
• court must be “particularly careful in employment discrimination cases to avoid supplanting [its] view of the credibility or weight of the evidence for that of the jury”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).