London v. City of Franklin

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that filing a CHRO complaint qualified as participation in a protected activity
• dismissing retaliation claim because a \suspension occurred more than six months . . . after filing his [] complaints\
• granting summary judgment without considering defendants’ exhaustion argument because plaintiff’s claim failed on the merits
• suspension without pay is an adverse employment action sufficient for a retaliation claim
• “[I]t is undisputed that Plaintiff has introduced evidence sufficient to satisfy the adverse employment action requirement of a prima facie case of retaliation [under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act], at least in regards to his . . . suspension without pay.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).