Stella, Marie v. v. Mineta, Norman Y.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an element of a prima facie case of discriminatory non-promotion is that plaintiff “applied for and was denied an available position for which he/she was qualified.”
• holding that “[u]nder no circumstances does the WPA grant the District Court jurisdiction to entertain a whistleblower cause of action brought directly before it in the first instance”
• holding that “a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas”
• holding that “a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she [lost out on a promotion to] a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case”
• observing that “whistleblowing activity” includes “disclosing illegal conduct, gross mismanagement, gross wasting of funds, or actions presenting substantial dangers to health and safety”
• affirming dismissal of WPA claims not first brought to the OSC or MSPB for lack of jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).