Wu v. Southeast-Atlantic Beverage Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• applying § 2614(a)(3)(B) defense to interference claim based on employee's demotion
• “any inference of retaliatory intent otherwise created by a short lapse of time can be dispelled when intervening factors are established”
• “[b]ecause the court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated pretext, the court will assume, for purposes of summary judgment, that [defendant’s] denial of [plaintiffs] request for vacation time qualifies as an adverse employment action”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).