Roman v. Cornell University

How courts have described this case

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

• listing cases holding English-only rules are not discriminatory as applied to bilingual employees when there is a legitimate business necessity justification for the rule
• “Drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor, the Court concludes that these instances are sufficient to satisfy her de minimis burden of demonstrating that she engaged in protected activity.”
• “All decisions of which this Court is aware have held that English-only rules are not discriminatory as applied to bilingual employees where there is a legitimate business justification for implementing such a rule.”
• “[S]tatements by decisionmakers unrelated to the [termination] decisional process itself[] cannot satisfy [a] plaintiff’s burden . . . .” (alterations omitted) (quoting PriceWaterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 277 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring))
• “[The defendant’s] opposition to [the] plaintiffs application for unemployment benefits ... is not an adverse employment action. This was-a permissible, nondiscriminatory legal position taken by [the defendant] in opposition to [the] plaintiffs application for such benefits.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).