LAUDADIO v. Johanns

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that “a reasonable juror could find that the alleged acts taken collectively were not merely slights or justified reprimands, but materially adverse actions,” even where the acts taken individually “may be insufficient to establish a materially adverse action”
• “[R]eprimands . . . and excessive scrutiny do not constitute adverse employment actions.”
• “Second Circuit courts have rejected finding a causal inference when there were gaps of three months, six months, eight months, one year, and eleven months between the filing of the complaint and the alleged retaliation.”
• “Second Circuit courts have rejected finding a causal inference when there were gaps of three months, six months, eight months, one year, and eleven months between the filing of the complaint and the alleged retaliation.”
• “The USDA did not issue its FAD with respect to Laudadio’s first EEO complaint until August 21, 2007, almost six months after Laudadio commenced this action in federal court. . . . The FAD dismissed the claim pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(3

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).