Pearson v. Unification Theological Seminary

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that employee’s supervisor taking away responsibilities and routinely excluding her from decisions, calls, and management meetings did not constitute adverse employment action
• holding that evidence that a supervisor took away responsibilities and excluded the plaintiff from decisions was insufficient to qualify as a materially adverse employment action at summary judgment
• noting that in the reinstatement context, “it is well-settled that an employer is not liable for ‘interfering’ with an employee’s leave when the employee would have been terminated regardless of the leave.”
• rejecting “plaintiff’s argument that since her disability caused her conduct, she was in essence fired because of her disability”
• “[I]t is well-settled that an employer is not liable for ‘interfering’ with an employee’s leave when the employee would have been terminated regardless of the leave.”
• “[I]t is well- settled that an employer is not liable for ‘interfering’ with an employee’s leave when the employee would have been terminated regardless of the leave.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).