Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, 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 a three to four month period between the protected activity is not enough to show “very close” temporal proximity
• holding that even “[a] three-to-four month disparity between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action is not enough”
• holding that “a three to four month disparity between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action is not enough” to establish temporal proximity
• holding that a three- to four-month delay between the EEO action and the adverse action does not demonstrate causation
• holding that a “three to four month disparity between the statutorily protected expression and the adverse employment action is not enough” to establish causation
• holding that a 3-to-4- month disparity between the protected expression and the adverse employment action is not sufficient to establish temporal proxim- ity

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).