Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Administrative Review Board

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, for the federal WPA, an employee' suffered adverse personnel action in the form' of a discharge
• concluding that an em- ployee could have been constructively discharged in part because she “was told she would be … considered for a layoff and kept in a con- stant state of uncertainty as to whether she would continue to have a job”
• tailoring \cat's paw\ theory to retaliation claim brought under Sarbanes-Oxley Act by requiring the less onerous contributing-factor causation
• remanding to the Board in part to delineate the amounts of back wages, medicar expenses, and attorneys’ fees
• noting that the review standard under the APA “does not allow a court to displace the agency’s choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo”
• “Establishing a constructive discharge claim requires the showing of an even more offensive and severe work environment than is needed to prove a hostile work environment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).