Madison-Oneida-Herkimer Consortium v. North American Administrators, Inc.

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 “material adversity” requirement “is entirely consistent” with the objective of Title VII’s anti‐retaliation provision
• holding that only question is whether employer’s action affected employee’s “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment”
• holding that statutory text requires only discrimination with respect to an employee's “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” without any further test
• recognizing that a nexus to terms and conditions of employment is an essential distinction between discrimination and retaliation claims
• holding that statutory text requires only discrimination with respect to an employee's “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” without any further test
• explaining that the court’s conclusion as to Title VII’s antidiscrimination provision is consistent with the prevailing interpretation of the antiretaliation provision in light of the “fundamental differences between the antidiscrimination and the antiretaliation provisions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).