Merritt v. Dillard Paper Company

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 statement a decisionmaker’s statement that an employee would be discharged plus express disapproval of a protected activity in a single conversation constituted “direct evidence” of retaliatory discharge
• deciding that “participat[ion] in any manner” as used in anti-retaliation provision means “all” kinds of participation, even involuntary trial testimony
• noting that an employer may unquestionably impose discipline, “including termination, on any employee who sexually harasses or otherwise discriminates against other employees”
• stating that “the result produced by the plain meaning canon must be truly absurd before [the absurdity exception] trumps it”
• concluding that an employee who testified in a protected Title VII case and admitted sexual harassment could be fired and that in “virtually every” such case the employer would be entitled to summary judgment, absent direct evidence of retaliation or pretext
• explaining that evidence merely suggesting discrimination or evidence that is subject to more than one interpretation is not direct evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).