Michael Weston v. Commonwealth of of Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they were of a “temporary nature,” were “not permanently affixed to [plaintiffs] employment file,” and did not change or alter plaintiffs employment status
• concluding that the district court erred when it found that plaintiffs written reprimands rose to the level of an adverse employment action “because of their ‘presumed’ effect on [the] compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of [plaintiffs] employment.”
• explaining that an adverse employment action “effect[s] a material change in the terms or conditions of [a person’s] employment”
• involving a hostile work environment sexual harassment complaint filed by an employee against his state employer and his co-workers
• involving a hostile work environment sexual harassment complaint filed by an employee against his state employer and his co-workers
• explaining that courts analyze PHRA claims under same framework as Title VII claims

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).