7 Tennessee opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jack Indurante v. Local 705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Afl-Ciogreen2 sentences1999See Indurante v. Local 705, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 160 F.3d 364, 366-67 (7th Cir.1998). 1999See Indurante v. Local 705, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 160 F.3d 364, 366-67 (7th Cir. 1998). | 2 | 2 |
Paul Kordenbrock v. Gene Scroggy, Warden, Kentucky State Prisongreen1 sentence2025Where a discrimination claim is based on a reduction-in-force, courts modify the fourth element to require a showing of “additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.” Barnes v. GenCorp Inc., 896 F.2d 1457, 1465 (6th Cir. 1990). 5 Here, Ms. Bertrand and Carlex did not dispute that the first three elements necessary to establish a prima facie case were satisfied. | 1 | 1 |
Marcus A. Noble v. Brinker International, Inc.green1 sentence2015“Nonetheless, the eviden-tiary underpinnings of a plaintiffs prima facie case are not irrelevant or insulated from our examination to aid our determination [of] whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intentional discrimination.” Id. (citing Noble v. Brinker Intern., Inc., 391 F.3d 715, 725 (6th Cir.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Philecia Barnes v. City of Cincinnatigreen2 sentences2015Accordingly, we agree with Plaintiffs that “[w]hen reviewing the facts of a discrimination claim after there has been a full trial on the merits, we must focus on the ultimate question of discrimination rather than on whether a plaintiff made out a prima facie case.” Barnes v. City of Cincinnati, 401 F.3d 729, 736-37 (6th Cir.2005). 2015“Nonetheless, the eviden-tiary underpinnings of a plaintiffs prima facie case are not irrelevant or insulated from our examination to aid our determination [of] whether the evidence is sufficient to support a finding of intentional discrimination.” Id. (citing Noble v. Brinker Intern., Inc., 391 F.3d 715, 725 (6th Cir.2004)). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Sargentgreen1 sentence2010Tenn. September 1, 2009) (citing Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 955 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that verbal abuse or harassment does not constitute punishment under the Eighth Amendment); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that verbal threats to reclassify a prisoner are non-cognizable under § 1983)).1 The trial court properly dismissed the discrimination claim. | 1 | 1 |
Gregory A. Ivey v. George Wilson, Ron Hanley, Lt. Barnes, Robert Hendricks, Dewey Sowders, Capt. Barnett, Phil Parker, Andy Knight, and Tom Stewartgreen1 sentence2010Tenn. September 1, 2009) (citing Ivey v. Wilson, 832 F.2d 950, 955 (6th Cir. 1987) (holding that verbal abuse or harassment does not constitute punishment under the Eighth Amendment); Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985) (holding that verbal threats to reclassify a prisoner are non-cognizable under § 1983)).1 The trial court properly dismissed the discrimination claim. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jim Ferguson v. Middle Tennessee State University
green
1 sentence2015"An employee may have a valid retaliation claim even if the underlying discrimination claim fails." Ferguson, 451 S.W.3d at 381 . 10 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Linda M. Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., D/B/A Bath Manor Special Care Centre
green
1 sentence2006In Kocsis, the court held that an adverse employment action required “a materially adverse change in the terms of her employment.” White, 364 F.3d at 797 (quoting Kocsis, 97 F.3d at 885 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
green
1 sentence2006In Kocsis, the court held that an adverse employment action required “a materially adverse change in the terms of her employment.” White, 364 F.3d at 797 (quoting Kocsis, 97 F.3d at 885 ). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Reese v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
1 sentence1991Id. 731 P.2d at 503 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1991Id. 731 P.2d at 503 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.