Court of Appeals of Oregon· 7/5/2018

Meyer v. State

Citations

426 P.3d 89
292 Or. App. 647

How courts have described this case

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

determining that a gap of one to two months between the claimed protected activity and the adverse action was sufficient to raise an issue of fact on causation
determining that a gap of one to two months between the claimed protected activity and the adverse action was sufficient to raise an issue of fact on causation
stating that a plaintiff must meet a “relatively low bar” to demonstrate that an employment action is materially adverse and that “what it takes to meet that bar depends on the context of the case” (internal quota- tion marks omitted)
stating that a plaintiff must meet a “relatively low bar” to demonstrate that an employment action is materially adverse and that “what it takes to meet that bar depends on the context of the case” (internal quota- tion marks omitted)
four-month gap between protected activity and adverse employment action combined with other evidence sufficient to raise an issue of material facts regarding causation
to constitute adverse action under former ORS 659A.030(1)(f) (2021), the action must have been materially adverse such that it was “harmful to the point that it could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Aoyagi, Devore, Shorr

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

9 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

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

Other cases with this name

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.