N.M. Military Inst. v. NMMI Alumni Ass'n

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that complaints filed against the plaintiff and “documented instances of [other] employees leaving due to [plaintiff’s] management style” are “intervening cause[s] justifying [plaintiff’s] termination”
• holding that “vague assertions, coupled with a conjectural timeline, do not overcome the otherwise largely undisputed point that the employee complaints against her were an intervening cause between her [] protected activity and her termination”
• concluding “a roughly 75-day delay between her protected activity and an adverse employment action is not, standing alone, a convincing case for proving causation.”
• concluding “a roughly 75-day delay between [plaintiff’s] protected activity and an adverse employment action is not, standing alone, a convincing case for proving causation”
• concluding “a roughly 75-day delay between her protected activity and an adverse employment action is not, standing alone, a convincing case for proving causation.”
• holding a two-and-a-half month lapse in time between protected activity and adverse employment action “is not, standing alone, a convincing case for proving causation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).