Vogel v. District of Columbia Office of Planning

How courts have described this case

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

• \The employee must alert the employer that she is lodging a complaint about allegedly [unlawful] discriminatory conduct.\
• “Employer awareness that the employee is engaged in protected activity is thus essential to making out a prima facie case for retaliation.”
• where five months passed between the employee’s complaint and termination, “a nexus between the two events could not be inferred from their temporal proximity alone”
• “We have construed [DCHRA] to guarantee employees the same protection from retaliation as is provided by the so-called ‘opposition clause’ in Title VII . . . .”
• employee could not show a protected activity where she did not link her lower pay in comparison to newly hired employees to a difference in their ages
• “It is not enough for an employee to object to favoritism, cronyism, violation of personnel policies, or mistreatment in general, without connecting it to membership in a protected class, for such practices, however repugnant they may be, are outside the purview of the HRA.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).