Russell v. McKinney Hosp. Venture

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that coworker’s frequently repeated comment that the plaintiff was an “old bitch” showed a discriminatory animus
• holding that an “old bitch” comment was evidence of discriminatory animus when it was made so frequently that the plaintiff had to wear earplugs and when the comments continued even after the plaintiff confronted the employee about what he was saying
• holding that the decision- maker acted as the “cat’s paw” of a discriminatory employee who held such “great informal power” in the company that he effectively became the decision-maker with regard to hiring decisions.”
• explaining that the final decisionmaker must be aware of the protected activity or he must have been improperly influenced by someone with retaliatory intent
• reiterating that it is the province of the jury to choose among conflicting versions and make credibility determinations
• emphasizing that our “stray remarks” jurisprudence must be viewed with caution in light of Reeves

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).