Stofsky v. Pawling Central School District

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the plaintiff could not support an inference of discrimination where, among other things, the defendant employer “took steps to accommodate [p]laintiff’s concerns”
• explaining that an involuntary transfer is an 16 adverse employment action only “when an employee’s new assignment is materially less prestigious, materially less suited to [his] skills and expertise, or materially less conducive to career advancement”
• dismissing a Title VII retaliation claim on summary judgment where the plaintiff relied on “amorphous assertions . . . bolstered by no evidence in the record from which a reasonable jury could conclude that [the p]laintiff ever engaged in protected activity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).