Robert MAYBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VOUGHT AIRCRAFT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “timing of the adverse employment action can be a significant, although not necessarily determina- tive, factor” in establishing the causal link
• holding that even though white employees were not disciplined for identical action, the more frequent recurrence and financial cost of plaintiff’s actions made the circumstances not identical
• holding that “there is nothing inherently ‘suspicious’ about a 13-day suspension that occurs several years after the protected activity begins,” and instead noting that such a lapse in time may be “evidence against retaliation”
• holding that “[w]e do not try in court the validity of good faith beliefs” of an employer’s decision because “[m]otive is the issue” (quoting Little v. Republic Ref. Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir. 1991)
• providing that “a prima facie case may be established by showing that the plaintiff did not violate the work-rule for which he was disciplined.”
• recognizing violation of a work rule as a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for adverse employment action

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).