Powell v. Castaneda

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 “proposed termination” is “the very type of discrete act[ ] ... identified ... as separate, actionable, unlawful employment practices”
• holding that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiffs EPA claims, which sought more than $10,000 in damages
• holding that a “Fully Satisfactory” rating did not constitute a change in employment status
• stating that the District \took employment actions that were continuously adverse to [her] by refusing to transfer her to her requested unit in which [she] could properly perform her assignments\
• maintaining that she “was subjected to several adverse employment actions by [the] District”
• dismissing EPA claim where “plaintiff [ ] conceded that she seeks more than $10,000 in damages because she does not counter the defendant’s EPA argument.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).