Leonard S. GOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that \Section 1981 would become meaningless if an employer could fire an employee for attempting to enforce his rights under that statute\
• noting that “Section 1981 would become meaningless if an employer could fire an employee for attempting to enforce his rights under that statute”
• stating that “even if all three witnesses’ accounts of racial discrimination were true, this evidence would not have been enough to prove a pattern or practice of company-wide discrimination”
• noting that “Section 1981 would become meaningless if an employer could fire an employee for attempting to enforce his rights under that statute”
• stating the elements of a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
• “The determination of the admissibility of evidence is within the broad discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion resulting in substantial prejudice to the rights of a party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).