McCullough v. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

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 termination letter stating plaintiff was fired for sexual harassment and “not for ‘filing a complaint in general,’ but rather for filing untruthful complaints,” was not direct evidence of retaliation
• noting that “the appropriate scope of investigation is a business judgment, and shortcomings in an investigation do not by themselves support an inference of discrimination.”
• stating that the “critical inquiry” in discrimination cases is “whether the employer in good faith believed that the employee was guilty of the conduct justifying discharge”
• noting that Title VII and ACRA claims “are governed by the same standards”
• noting that Title VII and ACRA claims are “governed by the same standards,” and that a plaintiff can present direct or circumstantial evidence of sex discrimination to survive motion for summary judgment on such claims
• noting that such an approach is appropriate at the summary judgment stage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).