Terry L. Ambrose v. Township of Robinson, Pennsylvania

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that temporal proximity may not be used to show that a defendant was aware of the protected conduct in the first place
• explaining that “[i]t is only intuitive that for protected conduct to be a substantial or motivating factor in a decision, the decisionmakers must be aware of the protected conduct”
• explaining that “[i]t is only intuitive that for protected conduct to be a substantial or motiving factor in a decision, the decisionmakers must be aware of the protected conduct”
• explaining that “[i]t is only intuitive that for protected conduct to be a substantial or motiving factor in a decision, the decisionmakers must be aware of the protected conduct”
• explaining that “[i]t is only intuitive that for protected conduct to be a - 17 - substantial or motiving factor in a decision, the decisionmakers must be aware of the protected conduct”
• “[T]emporal proximity can[not] be used to show that an employer was aware of the protected conduct in the first place.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).