Nastri v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “large temporal gaps between allegations undermine a hostile-work-environment claim” and suggest “occasional problems, not pervasive ones”
• holding that the plaintiff’s failure to put her employer on notice of the plaintiff’s belief that unwelcome conduct was on account of protected status defeated retaliation claim
• holding that when an employee’s complaints concerned an unlawful employment practice—tampering—and were not linked to any racial motivation or other protected class, they were not protected activities under Title VII
• recognizing that “only when an employee has ‘an objectively reasonable belief in light of all the circumstances that a Title VII violation has happened or is in progress’ is the employee’s conduct ‘protected’”
• concluding that an employee’s alleged tampering with the plaintiff’s machine was insufficient to “create a pervasively hostile work environment over the entire relevant period” where the conduct occurred “long ago and in relative isolation”
• explaining that allegations that are remote in time relative to each other and the adverse action do not create a genuine issue of material fact

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).