18 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,254 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar
570 U.S. 338 (2013) Cited 5,208 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that application of the " ‘because’ of" requirement of Title VII's antiretaliation provision requires proof of "but-for" causation
Faragher v. Boca Raton
524 U.S. 775 (1998) Cited 9,280 times 100 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough
Little v. Liquid Air Corp.
37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 12,374 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact
Lee v. Kansas
574 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2009) Cited 930 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the infraction record of employees must be "comparable" in order for them to be similarly situated
Hernandez v. Yellow Transp. Inc.
670 F.3d 644 (5th Cir. 2012) Cited 696 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff being called a racially derogatory term and seeing a poster or letter that was derogatory about Hispanics was not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim
Ramsey v. Henderson
286 F.3d 264 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 946 times
Holding that “conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy” the nonmovant's burden in a motion for summary judgment
Feist v. State
730 F.3d 450 (5th Cir. 2013) Cited 607 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff did not have to show "a nexus" between her requested accommodation — a free, on-site parking space — and the essential functions of her job as an assistant attorney general
Aryain v. Wal-Mart Stores
534 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 611 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff's complaint to her supervisor constituted protected activity (citing Green v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 284 F.3d 642, 657 (5th Cir. 2002))
Raggs v. Mississippi Power Light Co.
278 F.3d 463 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 432 times
Holding that gap of five months was not enough
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,637 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,931 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Cruz v. Johnson

18 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that application of the " ‘because’ of" requirement of Title VII's antiretaliation provision requires proof of "but-for" causation

Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

Holding that a mere scintilla of evidence does not create a genuine issue of material fact

Holding that the infraction record of employees must be "comparable" in order for them to be similarly situated

Holding that a plaintiff being called a racially derogatory term and seeing a poster or letter that was derogatory about Hispanics was not sufficient to support a hostile work environment claim

Holding that “conclusory allegations, speculation, and unsubstantiated assertions are inadequate to satisfy” the nonmovant's burden in a motion for summary judgment

Holding that the plaintiff did not have to show "a nexus" between her requested accommodation — a free, on-site parking space — and the essential functions of her job as an assistant attorney general

Holding that the plaintiff's complaint to her supervisor constituted protected activity (citing Green v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 284 F.3d 642, 657 (5th Cir. 2002))

Holding that gap of five months was not enough

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"