Mary Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “an employee’s subjective personal 19 judgments of her competence alone do not raise a genuine issue of material fact”
• holding that an employee’s subjective beliefs 4 about her own job competence are insufficient to show pretext
• holding that “an employee’s 3 24-2232 subjective personal judgment of [his] competence alone do not raise a genuine issue of material fact” regarding pretext
• holding that a strong inference applies when “both actions occur within a short 24 period of time;” there, the first action occurred in April with the adverse action occurring the same August
• holding that California relies on federal discrimination decisions to interpret the FEHA
• noting that the plaintiff \produced no meaningful evidence indicating either that [the employer's] proffered explanation was false or that her supervisor harbored discriminatory animus towards her because she was a woman\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).