United States v. Tetlow

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the defendant had “put forth a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for why [the plaintiff] did not receive” either position, i.e., “that there were other candidates that were more qualified”
• “A plaintiff cannot simply substitute utter speculation for the competent proof that would be necessary to permit rational inferences by a jury of discrimination or retaliation”
• “A plaintiff cannot simply substitute utter speculation for the competent proof that would be necessary to permit rational inferences by a jury of . . . retaliation.” (citing Soto v. Runyon, 13 F. Supp. 2d 215, 223 (D.P.R. 1998))
• “[E]ven assuming that . . . [defendant] knew of plaintiff’s EEO activity . . . the temporal proximity is too attenuated. In this case, approximately two years passed from when plaintiff filed her EEO complaint [to] . . . when she was not selected for the . . . position.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).