Wallace v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the trial court properly dismissed defamation claims where statements were made more than one year before lawsuit was filed
• holding that individual partners in a law firm can be held liable under the DCHRA even though they cannot under Title VII
• holding that statements that “an attorney is often out of the office during normal working hours, . . . could reasonably be construed, in context, as a reflection on her professional performance”
• rejecting that multiple “defamatory statements were all part of a single continuing course of conduct,” even where plaintiff alleged that the statements “cumulatively led to her discharge from employment”
• upholding dismissal of claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy where ―the plaintiff‘s own complaint reveals that she was not terminated solely, or even substantially, for engaging in conduct protected by such an exception‖
• upholding dismissal of claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy where ―the plaintiff‘s own complaint reveals that she was not terminated solely, or even substantially, for engaging in conduct protected by such an exception‖

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).