Rajiv Malik, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Carrier Corp., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, Regina Kramer, Defendant-Cross-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that emotional harm may be caused by an employer's actions during the course of employment
• reasoning that worst-case scenarios must govern review when employer cannot assume that harassing behavior is likely to stop
• explaining that “if employers must fear ... liability based on ex post findings, they will be deterred from taking reasonable corrective action ... as required by federal law”
• explaining that an employer’s duty to investigate cannot be “subordinated to the victim’s desire to let the matter drop”
• finding that Connecticut affords a qualified privilege to intracorporate communications
• mandating employer’s investigation into a sexual harassment claim; finding that a worst-case scenario must govern the conduct of employer’s investigation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).