Roberts v. Park Nicollet Health Services

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that a plaintiff does not “create a genuine issue of material fact simply by submitting an affidavit that contradict[s] testimony at a prior deposition”
• holding supervisor’s question, “What are you going to do about the pregnancy; are you going to keep it?” while sighing, was direct evidence of discrimination
• noting that discriminatory comments by a decisionmaker constituted direct evidence, but adding “[a]lthough Roberts elected not to argue the case on a direct evidence theory, [the decisionmaker’s] alleged statements also provide an independent basis” for pretext
• assuming, without discussing, that an employee suffered an adverse employment action under similar circumstances
• concluding a reasonable jury could find the employer’s explanation that the plaintiffs termination was pretexual and that pregnancy was a motivating factor where the plaintiffs employer (1) asked plaintiff what she “was going to do about the pregnancy; are you going to keep it?”; (2
• “[A] factfinder may deem the conflicting evidence probative on the question whether the employer’s asserted reasons for the termination were true.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).