Wilson v. Mabus

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an employee who did not receive a shift change that his supervisor had recommended lacked a retaliation claim because this did not “result in any objectively tangible harm”
• finding that a four-month gap between protected activity and an adverse action is too attenuated to establish causation in a Title VII case
• explaining that four months between protected act and alleged retaliation 14 The Court has taken note of Craig’s citation to Carl v. Children’s Hosp., 702 A.2d 159 (D.C. 1997
• concluding plaintiff failed to allege an adverse employment action when his suspension “cause[d] him no economic harm” and did not affect his “employment terms, conditions, privileges or future employment opportunities”
• finding that a four-month gap could not support an inference of causation
• finding that a four-month gap could not support an inference of causation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).