Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that officer’s statements concerning police chiefs proposed staffing reductions at a union meeting were made in his capacity as a union representative, not as a police officer
• explaining that plaintiff who is “punished” but experiences no hardship has not shown a materially adverse action under Title VII
• explaining that “reimbursement of lost pay” after an unpaid suspension “is not sufficient to defeat [a plaintiff’s] Title VII retaliation No. 21-2496 15 claim”
• noting that the decisionmakers’ “discriminatory comments might be sufficient to establish the requisite background circumstances”
• finding that a 1 plaintiff’s “subjective impression about the desirability of [a] position . . .is insufficient to show 2 discriminatory intent.”
• holding statements made in capacity as union official not subject to rule announced in Garcetti

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).