Michael J. Flowers, Jr. v. Columbia College Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that under the participation clause “[n]o employer may retaliate against some- one who makes or supports a charge of discrimination against any employer”
• reversing the district court’s decision to dismiss a Title VII retaliation claim because the phrase “against his employer” does not appear in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
• “[N]o one may follow the rule ‘we do not employ anyone who has ever made [a charge of employment discrimination] against a prior employer.’”
• “[i]f a gaffe on a technical issue al‐ lowed the employer to show the worker the door, the anti‐ retaliation provision would be diluted to the point of use‐ 22 No. 13‐3788 lessness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).