McIntyre v. Peters

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[t]his Court has often followed a three-month rule to establish causation on the basis of temporal proximity alone” when considering a summary judgment motion
• recognizing the filing of an EEO complaint as protected activity
• “This Court has often followed a three-month rule to establish causation on the basis of temporal proximity 16 alone” (collecting cases)
• first quoting Brodetski v. Duffey, 141 F. Supp. 2d 35, 43 (D.D.C. 2001), then quoting Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273–74 (2001)
• three months is the outer limit of a claim based on temporal proximity alone
• “[D]efendant’s failure to follow its own policy . . . when viewed in light of plaintiff’s other evidence of pretext, raises a credibility question that is properly left to the jury.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).