Rebhan v. Fuhrman

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plaintiffs affidavits attached to her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment were not properly before the court because plaintiff failed to file a Local Rule 56.1 statement of additional facts
• noting that “Title VII, Section 1981, and IHRA claims use the same standards”
• granting summary judgment on Title VII claims because “[a] plaintiff’s bare or conclusory assertion that an employer mistreated her because of her protected status” is not sufficient to demonstrate a causal link
• granting summary judgment on Title VII claims because “[a] plaintiff’s bare or conclusory assertion that an employer mistreated her because of her protected status” is not sufficient to demonstrate a causal link
• “The discussion of facts in a responsive memorandum is insufficient to put the issue before the court.”
• “The discussion of facts in a responsive memorandum is insufficient to put the issue before the court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).