Raymond Smith v. County of Suffolk

How courts have described this case

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

• holding retaliation claim to require proof of adverse action and causal connection between protected activity and adverse action
• precluding summary judgment where the record permitted only inferences that defendant would have taken the same adverse actions against the plaintiff absent plaintiff’s protected conduct.
• finding material issue of fact as to causation where “[t]he plain language of several of the disciplinary charges at the heart of the adverse actions directly implicates not only the fact that Smith had engaged in protected speech, but also the content of that speech”
• “We resolve all ambiguities and draw all permissible factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.’”
• “[S]ummary judgment is precluded where questions regarding an employer’s motive predominate the inquiry regarding how important a role the protected speech played in the adverse employment decision.”
• “A plaintiff may establish causation either directly through a showing of retaliatory animus, or indirectly through a showing that the protected activity was followed closely by the adverse action.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).