Stephanie Carlson v. CSX Transportation, Incorpora

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that this court has yet to consider how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act
• holding that, under § 1981, an employee may sue an individual defendant who “instituted a (specified) adverse employment action” on an impermissible basis
• recognizing that this court has yet to consid- er how the distinction applies to the Railway Labor Act
• holding that two-year delay did not render claims of retaliatory animus implausible
• explaining that, alt‐ hough plaintiffs at summary judgment may need to point to similarly situated comparators, plaintiffs need not identify comparators in pleadings and often need discovery to iden‐ tify them
• explaining that “RLA preclusion, properly applied, does nothing more than keep disputes actually arising under a collective bargaining agreement out of court”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).