State v. Patamia

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that statements implicitly threatening to terminate the plaintiff did not qualify as an adverse action
• explaining that DCHRA “requires the same showing” as a Title VII retaliation claim
• “A plaintiff who has direct evidence need not rely on such an inference based on temporal proximity.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).