Mokhtar v. Clinton

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff’s “subjective opinion and self- serving statements about whether she deserved [a monetary] award are insufficient to create a genuine dispute of fact”
• finding claim omitted from acceptance letter administratively exhausted because it “was written plainly and directly on the face of the formal EEO complaint”
• stating there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for a plaintiff to respond to an acceptance-of-claims letter within a certain time to avoid waiving plaintiff’s claims
• stating there is no statutory or regulatory requirement for a plaintiff to respond to an acceptance-of-claims letter within a certain time to avoid waiving plaintiff's claims
• “[I]t is the perception of the decision- maker that is relevant to determining pretext, not a plaintiff’s perception of [her]self.” (second alteration in original
• “Courts apply the same analysis when evaluating a hostile work environment claim under Title VII and the ADEA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).