District of Columbia· 11/6/2006

McIntyre v. Peters

Citations

460 F. Supp. 2d 125
99 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 452
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80656
88 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 42,643

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).

Judges: Huvelle

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

35 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.