Murphy v. BeavEx, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that name calling and teasing based on disability were not sufficient to show “severe or pervasive” harassment
• finding that name calling and teasing based on disability were not sufficient to show “severe or pervasive’ harassment
• granting summary judgment where comments were directed at plaintiff’s job performance and not his multiple sclerosis condition
• finding comments directed at plaintiff-employee’s job performance did not display “discriminatory animus” and did not support an ADA hostile work environment claim

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).