Min Jin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the list of examples contained in the Supreme Court’s definition of “tangible employment actions” in Ellerth was “non-exclusive”
• stating that, in reviewing a challenge to a jury charge, the court first determines whether the charge was erroneous, and then considers whether the error must be reviewed under the fundamental error standard because the objection was forfeited below
• stating that, in reviewing a challenge to a jury charge, the court first determines whether the charge was erroneous, and then considers whether the error must be reviewed under the fundamental error standard because the objection was forfeited below
• “Requiring an employee to engage in unwanted sex acts is one of the most pernicious and oppressive forms of sexual harassment that can occur in the workplace.”
• “Requiring an employee to engage in unwanted sex acts is one of the most pernicious and oppressive forms of sexual harassment that can occur in the workplace.”
• affirming the district court’s denial of leave to file an amended complaint due to undue delay

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).