Samuel Stallings v. Hussmann Corporation Brian Groninger

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that judicial estoppel did not apply because the bankruptcy court dismissed the case on the trustee’s motion and therefore never discharged the debt
• concluding that the bankruptcy court did not accept plaintiff’s prior inconsistent position because plaintiff’s debts had not been discharged based on the incomplete disclosures
• holding that there was no judicial acceptance because “the bankruptcy court never discharged Stallings’s debts based on the information that Stallings provided in his schedules”
• deciding that the district court properly consolidated employee’s interference and retaliation claims as a retaliation claim
• explaining that an employee receiving a favorable review shortly before termination supports a finding of retaliation
• noting that there is no interference when the “reason for dismissal is insufficiently related to FMLA leave”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).