Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that evidence of a pattern of antagonist behavior was sufficient to support a causal link
• holding that the plaintiff’s testimony that his employer did not retaliate against him was irrelevant in light of evidence that the employer’s stated reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext
• explaining that date termination decision was made is the relevant date for unduly suggestive analysis
• recognizing the “close similarity” and overlapping evidence involved in the first and third steps of the McDonnell Douglas analysis
• expressing the view that a non-decisionmaker’s lack of participation in an adverse employment decision does not “render his opinion regarding company policy beyond the purview of Rule 801(d)(2)(D)”
• discussing circumstances in which “proximity in time” or a “pattern of antagonism” can demonstrate causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).