Thomas Mattson v. Caterpillar, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employee who, in bad faith, filed an unreasonable and meritless complaint with the EEOC was not entitled to protection from retaliation
• holding “that utterly baseless claims do not receive protection under Title VII”
• positing an employee who “assure[s] himself unlimited tenure by filing continuous complaints with the government agency [because] he fears that his employer will discover his duplicitous behavior at the workplace”
• finding clearly no sexual harassment “when . . . breast allegedly brushed against his arm on a single occasion” and when the woman reached around claimant without touching
• “Protection is not lost simply because an employee is mistaken on the merits of his or her charge.”
• “Under the direct method, the plaintiff must provide either direct evidence or circumstantial evidence that shows that the employer acted based on prohibited animus.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).