Millea v. Metro-North Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that actionable acts of retaliation therefore do not have to \relate to the specific terms and conditions of the employee's employment.\
• holding that whether the plaintiff encountered an “unusual circumstance” making him unable to notify his supervisor was a question of fact, not law, properly decided by the jury.
• holding that the “FMLA’s anti-retaliation provision has the same underlying purpose as Title VII” and applied Title VII’s standard for determining what constitutes a materially adverse employment action by an employer to the FMLA’s anti-retaliation provision”
• suggesting that a written reprimand can constitute a materially adverse employment action under certain circumstances
• explaining that it is legal error to fail to calculate the lodestar “as a starting point”
• explaining that it is legal error to fail to calculate the lodestar “as a starting point”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).