LESTER J. RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[i]ndividuals are not liable under Title VII in either their individual or official capacities”
• noting that the term “employer” has been identically treated under the ADEA and Title VII
• noting that the complained-of relationship began after the paramour was hired but was nevertheless considered paramour favoritism
• holding that the Faragher/Ellerth defense is unavailable “when the harassing supervisor is . . . ‘indisputably within that class of an employer organization’s officials who may be treated as the organization’s proxy’” (quoting Faragher, 524 U.S. at 789, 118 S. Ct. at 2275
• granting summary judgment in favor of employer on retaliation claim where employee had no evidence that decision-maker was aware of employee’s protected activity
• granting summary judgment in favor of employer on retaliation claim where employee had no evidence that decisionmaker was aware of employee’s protected activity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).