Showing 21–40 of 145 results
decision regarding what level of causation the plaintiff in an FHA retaliation case
disputed facts as to defendants’ liability for FHA retaliation based on the alleged
Kris’s burden of proof on her FHA retaliation claims is to establish that
In Claim 3, Kris claims that her eviction was in retaliation for her complaints
2 The facts relating to Kris’s FHA retaliation claims against the Dusseaults
retaliation was the “but-for” cause of the adverse action she suffered. See Taylor v.
must show (i.e., but-for cause or merely that retaliation was one of several
retaliation claims, asserted under 42 U.S.C. §§ 3613 and 3617, on the Dusseaults
3 retaliating against them because of M r . Gadson’s race and because
to comply with the terms of the lease and not in retaliation for
...The P/DN goes on to define both “retaliation” and “protected conduct.”
to characterize Kelly’s disciplinary actions as “retaliation”
retaliation claim] when the allegations are ‘largely conclusory
Count II is captioned “Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment Culminating in Constructive Discharge.” In it, Rolfs claims that he engaged in four activities protected by the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII and New Hampshire’s Law *213Against Discrimination, and that...
...MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132, 139 (1st Cir.2013) (“Obviously too, the employee must show that the retaliator knew about [his or] her protected activity — after all, one cannot have been motivated to retaliate by something he [or she...
(“Home Depot”) for sex discrimination (Count I ) and retaliation
precipitated the PIP) in retaliation for Rolfs’ HRC complaint.
protected activity, then even if Kelly did retaliate against
plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case of retaliation,
establishing a prima facie case of retaliation” is “relatively