Michael A. Mulhall v. John Ashcroft, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “conspiratorial theories” are not enough to show a retaliating actor knew of plaintiffs protected activity
• holding that the plaintiff had to provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the supervisors who took the adverse action against the plaintiff knew about the protected activity prior to taking that action
• stating that the decisionmaker’s knowledge of the protected activity is an essential element of the prima facie case of unlawful retaliation
• holding plaintiff had to provide direct or circumstantial evidence that the supervisors who took the adverse action against the plaintiff knew about the protected activity prior to taking that action
• concluding summary judgment was appropriate when the plaintiff supported the prima facie case with only “conspiratorial theories, not the specific facts required under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56”
• noting that circumstantial evidence of a claim is sufficient to survive summary judgment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).