Tomanovich, George v. City of Indianapolis

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 four-month gap between plaintiff's complaint and adverse action, without more, was insufficient to establish a causal connection
• holding that complaining in general terms of discrimination or harassment is insufficient to constitute protected activity for purposes of Title VII retaliation
• noting that statutorily protected activity must be connected to the protected status at issue, rather than merely complaining in general terms of harassment or discrimination
• stating that it was “questionable” whether updating the plaintiff’s notice of unacceptable performance constituted a materially adverse action
• noting that “merely complaining in general terms of discrimination or harassment, without indicating a connection to a protected class or providing facts sufficient to create that inference, is insufficient”
• “complaining in general terms of discrimination or harassment, without indicting a connection to a protected class or providing facts sufficient to create that inference, is insufficient.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).