Mayo v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George's Cnty.

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that unfulfilled threats are not materially adverse actions for the purpose of a Title VII retaliation claim
• holding that an employer's unfulfilled threats of unspecified disciplinary action did not constitute adverse actions
• holding that “three arguably race- tinged remarks did not rise to the level of severe or pervasive conduct” to survive summary judgment
• recognizing that unfulfilled threats are not ma‐ terially adverse actions for the purpose of a Title VII retalia‐ tion claim
• holding that a threat of future harm, without actual economic harm is not an adverse employment action
• concluding that the plaintiff failed to explain what harmful effects flowed from the admonishment letter

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).