Melton v. Central Illinois Public Service Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• denying plaintiffs’ request that the court “expand the notion of retaliatory discharge to cases ... where the employer takes disciplinary action short of discharge, such as the suspension of one of the plaintiffs in this case”
• stating “courts have implicitly rejected the notion that threats to discharge, discipline, or other coercion short of discharge can provide the basis for a claim [of retaliatory discharge]”
• rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that a “threat to discharge or discipline short of discharge” stated a valid cause of action, where plaintiffs were taking absences to obtain medical treatment for job-related injuries covered by the workers’ compensation statute
• rejecting plaintiffs’ claim that a “threat to discharge or discipline short of discharge,” stated a valid cause of action, where plaintiffs were taking absences to obtain medical treatment for job-related injuries covered by the workers’ compensation statute
• denying plaintiffs’ request that the court “expand the notion of retaliatory discharge to cases . . . where the employer takes disciplinary action short of discharge, such as the suspension of one of the plaintiffs in this case”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).