Pardo-Kronemann v. Jackson

How courts have described this case

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

• observing that “the strength of the prima facie case is still relevant ... to the central inquiry of whether [the plaintiff] has demonstrated that a reasonable jury could conclude from all the evidence” that the plaintiff acted from an improper motive
• explaining that “where a defendant retaliates at the first opportunity that is presented, a plaintiff will not be foreclosed from making out a prima facie case despite a substantial gap in time” (emphasis added) (quoted in Pl.’s Opp’n at 34)
• observing that “the strength of the prima facie case is still relevant . . . to the central inquiry of whether [the plaintiff] has demonstrated that a reasonable jury could conclude from all the evidence” that the plaintiff acted from an improper motive
• “[I]f the only circumstantial evidence of causation is temporal proximity between the protected activity and the alleged retaliatory action, then those events must be very close in time for that evidence to be sufficient for a jury to infer a retaliatory motivation.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).