Piercy v. Maketa

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “nothing suggests the proffered reasons for termination are weak, implausible, or inconsistent” or that the employer “acted in bad faith”
• recognizing that absent additional evidence, a three-month separation between the protected activity and the adverse action was too great to justify an inference of causal connection
• stating that “an adverse employment action that happened more than three months after the protected ac tivity was not entitled to a presumption of causation”
• noting that plaintiff need not prove discriminatory motive when employment policy is discriminatory on its face
• noting that we have found a proximity of three months insufficient to support “a presumption of causation”
• noting that the Tenth Circuit has found a proximity of three months insufficient to support a “presumption of causation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).