Montgomery County v. Park

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a ―fact finder must decide disputed issues of predicate fact‖ concerning whether ―a challenged action is adverse within the meaning of the Act‖
• concluding, in a related context, that an employer’s action was not materially adverse under the 9 Burlington standard because it did not “generally preclude[] him from obtaining outside employment,” among other reasons
• noting that “for a personnel action to be adverse within the meaning of the Act, it must be material, and thus likely to deter a reasonable, similarly situated employee from reporting a violation of the law”
• approving of Supreme Court’s reasoning in Burlington as applied to retaliation claim under Texas Whistleblower Act
• approving of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in White as applied to a claim of retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act
• approving of the Supreme Court’s 27 reasoning in White as applied to a claim of retaliation under the Texas Whistleblower Act

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).