Lightner v. City of Wilmington, NC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff’s comparator was too dissimilar because plaintiff was responsible for the department’s compliance with ethics rules while comparator was not
• concluding that the difference in positions between two police officers “makes the purported comparison in this case too loose”
• holding that the “similarity between the comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in order to be meaningful”
• concluding that admission of non-discriminatory purpose meant that plaintiff's “suspension, however wrongful, is not actionable under Title VII and the defendants are entitled to summary judgment”
• holding that employee’s acknowledgment he was fired to stop his internal investigation negates his claims of race and gender discrimination; “his suspension, however wrongful, is not actionable under Title VII[.]”
• noting that Title VII bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin and does not protect against mistreatment of whistleblowers or other forms of wrongful discharge

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).