Mercil v. Federal Express Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• evidence that those responsible for plaintiff’s termination knew that he intended to file a worker’s compensation claim is “essential” to retaliatory discharge action
• where no evidence that decision-makers knew of plaintiffs intent to file claim, fact that plaintiff discharged a week before scheduled surgery for injury sustained on job insufficient evidence from which jury could infer retaliatory motive
• “There is really no dispute that none of the employees charged with responsibility of terminating Mercil or reviewing his dismissal were informed that he was planning to file a permanent disability claim under the workers’ compensation act, until after the GFTP was completed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).