Tara Luevano v. Walmart Stores, Incorporated

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, at the pleading stage, a Title VII plaintiff need state only these two elements of a retaliation claim
• holding that the plaintiff successfully pleaded a retaliation claim by alleging that her work hours were reduced after filing an EEOC charge against a coworker
• holding that “a plaintiff who alleges retaliation for having filed a charge with the EEOC need not file a second EEOC charge to sue for that retaliation”
• holding that in forma pau-peris litigants have same entitlement to amend as fee-paying litigants
• holding that a Title VII retaliation claim included for the first time in the plaintiff’s third amended complaint would relate back to the initial complaint so long as the amendment was permitted by Rule 15(a)
• stating that a litigant proceeding under the in forma pauperis statute has the same right to amend a complaint as fee-paying plaintiffs have

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).