Vicki CROSS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emanuel CLEAVER II, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was not plain error to issue a combined retaliation instruction on Title VII and the MHRA because there does not appear to be any “effective difference” between the participation clauses in the MHRA and Title VII.
• upholding a verdict against a supervisor for retaliation because the supervisor had extensive authority over the employee, including the right to fire the employee
• “Where an appellant has failed to make an adequate objection below to preserve the purported error in instructions ... this court reviews only for ‘plain error.’ ”
• “[A] general objection is insufficient to preserve the specific objections to the instruction that the appellant may subsequently seek to raise on appeal.”
• employment actions sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action are usually actions involving an actual or apparent wielding of authority resulting in a material employment disadvantage
• employment actions that are sufficiently ád-verse to sustain a retaliation claim are also often actions in which the retaliator wields the employer’s authority, either actually or apparently, to effect the retaliation, which must take the form of a material employment disadvantage

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).