Monterroso v. Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “proceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve a litigant from the usual requirements of summary judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that courts should read the pleadings, briefs, and oppositions from a pro se plaintiff liberally
• noting that the plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because there was “no evidence that the [work] environment . . . was permeated with frequent, severe and offensive disability-related comments” (emphasis added)
• “[Proceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve a litigant from the usual requirements of summary judgment, and a pro se party’s bald assertion, unsupported by evidence, is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• “[P]roceeding pro se does not otherwise relieve a litigant from the usual requirements of summary judgment, and a pro se party's ‘bald assertion,’ unsupported by evidence, is not sufficient to overcome a motion for summary judgment.” (cleaned up)
• allegation that co-worker referred to plaintiff as a “stupid Italian” on several occasions held insufficient to support a hostile work environment claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).