Little v. United Technologies

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because section 1981 is different from Title VII, the type of discrimination it proscribes must be different and holding that section 1981 does not encompass retaliation claims
• concluding that because section 1981 is different from Title VII, the type of discrimination it proscribes must be different and holding that section 1981 does not encompass retaliation claims
• holding that no rational jury could find that Little’s belief was objectively reasonable because he never voiced his concern regarding a discriminatory practice and reported a single incident over eight months after it occurred
• holding that to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must demonstrate a good faith belief that her employer has engaged in an illegal employment practice
• ruling that employee’s opposition to remark by coworker was not protected where, because the remark could not be attributed to the employer, there was no objectively reasonable belief that it violated Title VII
• concluding that because section 1981 is different from Title VII, the 14 1-06-2428 & 1-06-2928 Consolidated type of discrimination it proscribes must be different and holding that section 1981 does not encompass retaliation claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).