Ray, III v. Ropes & Gray LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the “probative value” of racially derogatory marks is “circumscribed if they were made in a situation temporally remote from the date of the employment decision in question” (citation omitted)
• noting that while a plaintiff may make a showing of discrimination by pointing to similarly situated employees who were treated differently, the compared employees must “closely resemble one another in respect to relevant facts and circumstances” (quotation omitted)
• indicating that a rationale is pretextual when it is a “sham”
• stating that opining on the employee’s “fit into the culture of the firm” did not show animus where the evidence showed the phrase was regularly used to discuss the employee’s ability to solicit business and work collegially with other staff
• observing, in Title VII retaliation claim, that “[u]nlike the reasonableness requirement, when assessing a plaintiff’s good faith a factfinder need only ask whether a plaintiff had a subjective, honestly held belief”
• stating litigant waived his right to object to an instruction he \affirmatively requested\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).