Michael J. OLMSTED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TACO BELL CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that testimony that the decisionmaker was in a meeting with a manager who said the plaintiff “wasn’t going to be with the company much longer in the future,” provided the administrative group as well as Lawton. (Id.
• finding, in a case where there was a five-to-six- month gap between the protected conduct and the adverse action, that circumstantial evidence showing the decisionmaker’s awareness of the plaintiff’s protected conduct was sufficient for a jury to find causation
• “[A] plaintiff merely has to 4O prove that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated.” (quotation omitted)
• review of a pretrial pleading interpreta- tion that limited avenues for damages
• “It is undisputed that [plaintiff] has met the first two elements of his prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination, i.e., that he engaged in statutorily protected conduct (reporting alleged race discrimination) and suffered an adverse employment action (termination).”
• “It is undisputed that [plaintiff] has met the first two elements of his prima facie case of retaliatory discrimination, i.e., that he engaged in statutorily protected conduct (reporting alleged race discrimination) and suffered an adverse employment action (termination).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).