Texada v. Beaman

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that five months between the protected activity and alleged retaliation does not constitute the temporal proximity necessary to 26 show a causal connection
• holding that, “[w]hile there were gaps in the chain of events and several delays, the defendant at no point ended the interactive process and, indeed, worked with the plaintiff until she received her requested equipment and was approved for telecommuting”
• granting summary judgment in the employer’s favor where the plaintiff complained of a hostile work environment and alleged that her supervisor made “insulting or offensive remarks about [her] medical healthcare status”
• finding no materially adverse action where “although there was 58 a delay in providing the plaintiff with . . . telecommuting privileges, it is undisputed that she even- tually received those benefits, even after filing an OHR complaint and initiating this lawsuit”
• no adverse employment action when the plaintiff did not provide specific details about the trainings she was denied
• “The lack of temporal proximity between the [adverse activity] and the plaintiff’s protected activity—five months—is therefore insufficient to show a causal connection[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).