Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 3/29/2011

Talavera v. Shah

Citations

  • 638 F.3d 303
  • 395 U.S. App. D.C. 7
  • 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6299
  • 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,134
  • 111 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1574
  • 2011 WL 1120285

How courts have described this case

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

  • stating that a plaintiff seeking to rebut the defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason “need only offer circumstantial evidence that could reasonably support an inference” of knowledge, and acknowledging that, in making this assessment, “context matters”
  • stating that a plaintiff seeking to rebut the defendant’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason “need only offer circumstantial evidence that could reasonably support an inference” of knowledge, and acknowledging that, in making this assessment, “context matters”
  • explaining that “too much time had passed to link the past activity to the challenged action,” where plaintiff alleged that her non-promotion in June 2004 was retaliatory for complaints made in 2002 and in September 2003
  • reversing summary judgment because permissive adverse inference resulting from record destruction created genuine fact issue
  • deeming appropriate an adverse inference where an official destroyed notes that went to the heart of the dispute and that regulations required he keep
  • applying this principle, even in a situation in which the manager other than the one responsible for the adverse employment action made the statements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rogers, Brown, Silberman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

309 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

30 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Talavera v. Shah

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.