Nicastro v. Runyon

How courts have described this case

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

• collecting cases to show that “claims of retaliation are routinely dismissed when as few as three months elapse between the protected EEO activity and the alleged act of retaliation.”
• excessive scrutiny from supervisors and requiring documentation for sick leave could not support a Title VII retaliation claim
• “[M]any of the actions complained of by plaintiff, such as scrutiny from his supervisors that he deemed excessive ... do not constitute ‘adverse employment actions.’ ”
• “Surely, two-and-one half years is far too long to warrant an inference of discriminatory retaliation.” (citations omitted)
• “Claims of retaliation are routinely dismissed when as few as three months elapse between the protected . . . activity and the alleged act of retaliation.” (citations omitted)
• “Judicial review of administrative decisions denying claims for work-related compensation is expressly precluded under [FECA]. Plaintiff cannot get around this rule by collaterally attacking a denial of FECA benefits as retaliatory.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).