Richmond v. Oneok, Inc.

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 three-month period between protected activity and termination, standing alone, does not establish a causal connection
• holding that three-month period of time between protected activity and termination was insufficient to establish a casual connection
• concluding that “three-month period between the [protected] activity and termination” did not establish a causal connection
• holding that the “three-month period of time between [plaintiff’s] protected activity and termination was insufficient to establish a causal connection”
• holding that the “three-month period of time . . . was insufficient to establish a causal connection”
• holding that a three-month period between protected activity and termination could not support inference of causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).