MacK v. Strauss

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a delay in receiving a performance evaluation did not constitute an adverse action
• holding that an allegedly increased workload is insufficient to bring a discrimination claim without “some adverse change in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment”
• holding that a 60(b) motion “is 10 not a vehicle to reargue the motion or to present evidence which should have been raised 11 before” (citation omitted)
• allegedly increased workload does not constitute actionable injury where not accompanied by adverse change in terms, conditions or privileges of employment
• “mere investigations by plaintiffs employer cannot constitute an adverse action because they have no adverse effect on plaintiffs employment”
• “mere investigations by plaintiffs employer cannot constitute an adverse action because they have no adverse effect on plaintiffs employment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).