Muller v. Senkowski

How courts have described this case

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

• holding retaliation requires opposition to unlawful employment practice under Title VII, not just allegations of unlawful employment practice
• holding that “the fact that the plaintiff is a human resource director who may have a ‘contractual duty to voice such concerns’ does not defeat a claim of retaliation; and the complaint may be made to a co-worker, a newspaper reporter, or anyone else.”
• finding no adverse action where the plaintiff’s 25 “placement in a cell with property restrictions was only temporary”
• “Under the opposition clause, . . . [t]here is no qualification on who the individual doing the complaining may be or on who the party to whom the complaint is made.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).