Pennsylvania Railroad v. Holly

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “there is nothing to indicate that the principle of employer responsibility does not extend equally to other Title VII claims, such as a claim of unlawful retaliation”
• recognizing that a jury must be allowed to “evaluate the record as a whole and to decide whether the State ... retaliated against Knox ... by sitting on its hands in the face of the campaign of co-worker harassment about which it knew”
• recognizing that a jury must be allowed to “evaluate the record as a whole and to decide whether the State . . . retaliated against Knox . . . by sitting on its hands in the face of the campaign of co-worker harassment about 42 which it knew”
• requiring the plaintiff to establish the right link “between the employer and the coworkers, so that the employer can be held responsible for their actions”
• noting possibility of a Title VII retaliation theory where a supervisor permits a plaintiff's \fellow employees to punish her for invoking her rights under Title VII\
• upholding a jury verdict after recognizing that a company may be held liable for retaliation through their acquiescence in a coworker’s campaign of retaliatory harassment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).