Patten v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “[a] statement that can plausibly be interpreted two different ways—one discriminatory and the other benign—does not directly reflect illegal animus, and, thus, does not constitute direct evidence”
• noting that a plaintiff may establish discrimination either through circumstantial or direct evidence
• noting direct evidence \consists of statements by a decisionmaker that directly reflect the alleged animus and bear squarely on the contested employment decision\
• rejecting prisoner’s claims of “substantial compliance,” or that 22 grievance process was not “available” to him where he failed to appeal an unfavorable grievance 23 ruling within the required thirty day period
• “A statement that can plausibly be interpreted two different ways—one discriminatory and the other benign—does not directly reflect illegal animus, and, thus, does not constitute direct evidence.”
• explaining what qualifies as direct evidence

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).