49 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 12 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan 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 |
|---|---|---|
Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health Servicesgreen2 sentences2018See Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 273 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005). 2018See Garg v Macomb Co Community Mental Health Servs, 472 Mich 263, 273 ; 696 NW2d 646 (2005). | 3 | 6 |
DeFLAVIIS v. LORD & TAYLOR, INCgreen2 sentences2023Regarding a retaliation claim, the ELCRA provides in relevant part: Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act. [MCL 37.2701(a).] To establish a retaliation claim under the ELCRA, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that [s]he engaged in a protected activity; (2) that this was known by the defendant; (3) that the defenda 2023Regarding a retaliation claim, the ELCRA provides in relevant part: Two or more persons shall not conspire to, or a person shall not: (a) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act. [MCL 37.2701(a).] To establish a retaliation claim under the ELCRA, a plaintiff must establish “(1) that [s]he engaged in a protected activity; (2) that this was known by the defendant; (3) that the defenda | 2 | 6 |
Michael v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp.green2 sentences2018“This more liberal definition permits actions not materially adverse for purposes of an anti- discrimination claim to qualify as such in the retaliation context.” Michael, 496 F3d at 596 (holding that placing employee on brief paid administrative leave and 90-day performance plan meet “relatively low bar” of materially adverse action for purpose of retaliation claim); see also Halfacre v Home Depot, USA, Inc, 221 F App’x 424, 432 (CA 6, 2007) (remanding for reconsideration, in light of Burlington Northern, whether assigning the plaintiff a poor performance- evaluation score constituted an adve 2018“This more liberal definition permits actions not materially adverse for purposes of an anti- discrimination claim to qualify as such in the retaliation context.” Michael, 496 F3d at 596 (holding that placing employee on brief paid administrative leave and 90-day performance plan meet “relatively low bar” of materially adverse action for purpose of retaliation claim); see also Halfacre v Home Depot, USA, Inc, 221 F App’x 424, 432 (CA 6, 2007) (remanding for reconsideration, in light of Burlington Northern, whether assigning the plaintiff a poor performance- evaluation score constituted an adve | 2 | 3 |
Shaw v. City of Ecorsegreen2 sentences2015See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (holding that to satisfy the causation requirement under the WPA, a plaintiff “must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Gov’t of Nashville, 474: F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (stating that “[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); and Shaw v City of Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (noting that “[a] temporal connectio 2015See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (holding that to satisfy the causation requirement under the WPA, a plaintiff “must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Gov’t of Nashville, 474: F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (stating that “[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); and Shaw v City of Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (noting that “[a] temporal connectio | 2 | 3 |
West v. General Motors Corp.green2 sentences2015See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (holding that to satisfy the causation requirement under the WPA, a plaintiff “must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Gov’t of Nashville, 474: F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (stating that “[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); and Shaw v City of Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (noting that “[a] temporal connectio 2015See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (holding that to satisfy the causation requirement under the WPA, a plaintiff “must show something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Gov’t of Nashville, 474: F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (stating that “[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); and Shaw v City of Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (noting that “[a] temporal connectio | 2 | 3 |
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Whitegreen2 sentences2021We recently adopted the standard articulated in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R Co v White, 548 US 53, 87 ; 126 S Ct 2405 ; 165 L Ed 2d 345 (2006), for determining what constitutes a materially adverse employment action in the context of a retaliation claim. 2021We recently adopted the standard articulated in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe R Co v White, 548 US 53, 87 ; 126 S Ct 2405 ; 165 L Ed 2d 345 (2006), for determining what constitutes a materially adverse employment action in the context of a retaliation claim. | 2 | 2 |
Patricia Burlin Tuttle, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2015Of course, the mayor, as the top executive officer of the city of 44 See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (to satisfy causation requirement under WPA, plaintiff must show “something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Govt of Nashville, 474 F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (“[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); and Shaw v Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (“[a] tempora 2014See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (to satisfy causation requirement under the WPA, a plaintiff must show “something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Co, Venn, 474 F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (“[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); Shaw v Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (“[a] temporal connection between protected activity and an | 2 | 2 |
Wilcoxon v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2020See Wilcoxon v Minnesota Min & Mfg Co, 235 Mich App 347, 363 ; 597 NW2d 250 (1999) (there must be some objective basis for demonstrating that the change is adverse because a plaintiff’s subjective impressions as to the desirability of one position over another are not controlling); Pena v Ingham Co Rd Com’n, 255 Mich App 299, 311 ; 660 NW2d 351 (2003) (applying Wilcoxon to a retaliation claim and citing various federal circuit court cases for the proposition that “[a]lthough there is no exhaustive list of adverse employment actions, typically it takes the form of an ultimate employment decisio 2020See Wilcoxon v Minnesota Min & Mfg Co, 235 Mich App 347, 363 ; 597 NW2d 250 (1999) (there must be some objective basis for demonstrating that the change is adverse because a plaintiff’s subjective impressions as to the desirability of one position over another are not controlling); Pena v Ingham Co Rd Com’n, 255 Mich App 299, 311 ; 660 NW2d 351 (2003) (applying Wilcoxon to a retaliation claim and citing various federal circuit court cases for the proposition that “[a]lthough there is no exhaustive list of adverse employment actions, typically it takes the form of an ultimate employment decisio | 1 | 2 |
Jager v. Nationwide Truck Brokers, Incgreen2 sentences2004Because there exists genuine issues of material fact in regard to all of plaintiffs claims against defendants Baergen and MTD, and because Baergen can be held individually liable solely for the retaliation claim in spite of this Court’s decision in Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich App 464 ; 652 NW2d 503 (2002), we affirm in part and reverse in part the grant of summary disposition in Docket No. 248124 and remand for further proceedings. 2004Because there exists genuine issues of material fact in regard to all of plaintiffs claims against defendants Baergen and MTD, and because Baergen can be held individually liable solely for the retaliation claim in spite of this Court’s decision in Jager v Nationwide Truck Brokers, Inc, 252 Mich App 464 ; 652 NW2d 503 (2002), we affirm in part and reverse in part the grant of summary disposition in Docket No. 248124 and remand for further proceedings. | 1 | 2 |
William M. Mitchell, M.D., ph.d. v. Vanderbilt Universitygreen1 sentence2026Appellants stress that on one occasion, there was a verbal threat not to simply settle the property dispute, but to sue Appellants “for fraud if [they] attempted to sell this land.” We have stated that “[m]ere threats . . . are generally not sufficient to satisfy the adverse action requirement.” Mitchell v Vanderbilt Univ, 389 F3d 177, 182 (CA 6, 2004). | 1 | 1 |
Johnny Strickland v. City of Detroit, Mich.green1 sentence2025A retaliation claim under the ELCRA, identical to its federal counterpart, requires a showing “that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 161 (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Strickland, 995 F3d at 510 . | 1 | 1 |
Rymal v. Baergengreen1 sentence2024See Rymal, 262 Mich App at 301 and n 6 (holding that “a single reference to the retaliation constituting sexual discrimination” was sufficient to place the defendants on notice that a retaliation claim was being brought under ELCRA and noting further Michigan’s “general fact-based pleading” requirements”), see also MCR 211(B)(1); see also El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 162. | 1 | 1 |
Ali v. District of Columbia Governmentgreen1 sentence2024The panel noted that Subsection (f) was engrafted onto the statute in 1992 Inc, unpublished opinion of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, issued January 31, 2014 (Case No. 13-cv-295-PB), pp 13, 15-16 (allowing a retaliation claim brought by a “close friend” of an individual who engaged in protected conduct to proceed); Ali v Dist of Columbia Gov’t, 810 F Supp 2d 78, 89-90 (D DC, 2011) (denying the defendant’s motion for summary judgment of third-party retaliation claim brought by the “best friend” of the individual who engaged in protected conduct); Cobb v Atri | 1 | 1 |
Albert ALLEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appelleegreen1 sentence2021“In order to show a causal connection, a plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence from which an inference can be drawn that the adverse action would not have been taken had the plaintiff not filed a discrimination action.” Allen v Michigan Dep’t of Corrections, 165 F3d 405, 413 (CA 6, 1999). | 1 | 1 |
Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc.green1 sentence2021Daugherty v Sajar Plastics, Inc, 544 F3d 696, 707 (CA 6, 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Duncan v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| MacDonald v. United Parcel Servicegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Abela v. General Motors Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| A.C. Ex Rel. J.C. v. Shelby County Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heckmann v. Detroit Chief of Policegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Che v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authoritygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gibson v. Shelly Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wolcott v. Champion International Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Carol A. Jacklyn Roger Jacklyn v. Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 747211green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cuddington v. United Health Services, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024MCL 418.301(13) provides as follows: A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. 2 “Mr. Charlie” is presumably Charles Bugg, Durham’s operations supervisor. -2- This Court in Cuddington v United Health Services, Inc, 298 Mich App 264, 275 ; 826 NW2d 519 (2012), summarized the approach to analyzing a retaliation claim: In Phil 2024MCL 418.301(13) provides as follows: A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. 2 “Mr. Charlie” is presumably Charles Bugg, Durham’s operations supervisor. -2- This Court in Cuddington v United Health Services, Inc, 298 Mich App 264, 275 ; 826 NW2d 519 (2012), summarized the approach to analyzing a retaliation claim: In Phil | 4 | 2016–2026 |
Barrett v. Kirtland Community College
green
2 sentences2018In Aho v Dep’t of Corrections, 263 Mich App 281, 289 ; 688 NW2d 104 (2004), this Court set forth the applicable legal principles for establishing the element of causation in a retaliation claim: To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must demonstrate that his participation in the protected activity was a “significant factor” in the employer’s adverse employment action, not merely that there was a causal link between the two events. [Barrett v Kirtland Comm College, 245 Mich App 306, 325 ; 628 NW2d 63 (2001)]. 2018In Aho v Dep’t of Corrections, 263 Mich App 281, 289 ; 688 NW2d 104 (2004), this Court set forth the applicable legal principles for establishing the element of causation in a retaliation claim: To establish a causal connection, a plaintiff must demonstrate that his participation in the protected activity was a “significant factor” in the employer’s adverse employment action, not merely that there was a causal link between the two events. [Barrett v Kirtland Comm College, 245 Mich App 306, 325 ; 628 NW2d 63 (2001)]. | 4 | 2017–2018 |
Aho v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2023In Aho v Dep’t of Corrections, 263 Mich App 281, 291-292 ; 688 NW2d 104 (2004), this Court held that a period of five years between the protected activity and the plaintiff’s dismissal was too tenuous to support a retaliation claim, explaining: Although the timing between the protected activity and the adverse action may in some cases constitute circumstantial evidence pointing to a causal nexus, Wrenn v Gould, 808 F2d 493, 501 (CA 6, 1987), in this case, the time between the events was remote—approximately five years—thus seriously undermining any claim by plaintiff of a causal connection. 2023In Aho v Dep’t of Corrections, 263 Mich App 281, 291-292 ; 688 NW2d 104 (2004), this Court held that a period of five years between the protected activity and the plaintiff’s dismissal was too tenuous to support a retaliation claim, explaining: Although the timing between the protected activity and the adverse action may in some cases constitute circumstantial evidence pointing to a causal nexus, Wrenn v Gould, 808 F2d 493, 501 (CA 6, 1987), in this case, the time between the events was remote—approximately five years—thus seriously undermining any claim by plaintiff of a causal connection. | 3 | 2018–2023 |
Geraldine Fuhr v. Hazel Park School District
green
2 sentences2015In its opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit noted that “[o]ur review of the law shows that multiyear gaps between the protected conduct and the first retaliatory act have been insufficient to establish the requisite causal connection.” Fuhr, 710 F3d at 676 . 2015Of course, the mayor, as the top executive officer of the city of 44 See, for example, West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 186 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003) (to satisfy causation requirement under WPA, plaintiff must show “something more than merely a coincidence in time between protected activity and adverse employment action”); Tuttle v Metro Govt of Nashville, 474 F3d 307, 321 (CA 6, 2007) (“[t]he law is clear that temporal proximity, standing alone, is insufficient to establish a causal connection for a retaliation claim”); and Shaw v Ecorse, 283 Mich App 1, 15 ; 770 NW2d 31 (2009) (“[a] tempora | 3 | 2014–2015 |
Peña v. Ingham County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2020See Wilcoxon v Minnesota Min & Mfg Co, 235 Mich App 347, 363 ; 597 NW2d 250 (1999) (there must be some objective basis for demonstrating that the change is adverse because a plaintiff’s subjective impressions as to the desirability of one position over another are not controlling); Pena v Ingham Co Rd Com’n, 255 Mich App 299, 311 ; 660 NW2d 351 (2003) (applying Wilcoxon to a retaliation claim and citing various federal circuit court cases for the proposition that “[a]lthough there is no exhaustive list of adverse employment actions, typically it takes the form of an ultimate employment decisio 2020See Wilcoxon v Minnesota Min & Mfg Co, 235 Mich App 347, 363 ; 597 NW2d 250 (1999) (there must be some objective basis for demonstrating that the change is adverse because a plaintiff’s subjective impressions as to the desirability of one position over another are not controlling); Pena v Ingham Co Rd Com’n, 255 Mich App 299, 311 ; 660 NW2d 351 (2003) (applying Wilcoxon to a retaliation claim and citing various federal circuit court cases for the proposition that “[a]lthough there is no exhaustive list of adverse employment actions, typically it takes the form of an ultimate employment decisio | 2 | 2005–2020 |
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus
green
2 sentences2018Thus, mere discriminatory or adverse action will not suffice as evidence of retaliation unless the plaintiff demonstrates a clear nexus between -11- such action and the protected activity. [Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679 , 681–682; 613 NW2d 415 (2000)]. 2018Thus, mere discriminatory or adverse action will not suffice as evidence of retaliation unless the plaintiff demonstrates a clear nexus between -11- such action and the protected activity. [Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679 , 681–682; 613 NW2d 415 (2000)]. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus
green
2 sentences2018Thus, mere discriminatory or adverse action will not suffice as evidence of retaliation unless the plaintiff demonstrates a clear nexus between -11- such action and the protected activity. [Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679 , 681–682; 613 NW2d 415 (2000)]. 2018Thus, mere discriminatory or adverse action will not suffice as evidence of retaliation unless the plaintiff demonstrates a clear nexus between -11- such action and the protected activity. [Mitan v Neiman Marcus, 240 Mich App 679 , 681–682; 613 NW2d 415 (2000)]. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Major v. Village of Newberry
green
2 sentences2018“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he [or she] engaged in a protected activity; (2) that this was known by the defendant; (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Major v Village of Newberry, 316 Mich App 527, 552-553 ; 892 NW2d 402 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018“To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he [or she] engaged in a protected activity; (2) that this was known by the defendant; (3) that the defendant took an employment action adverse to the plaintiff; and (4) that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” Major v Village of Newberry, 316 Mich App 527, 552-553 ; 892 NW2d 402 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Mark Laster v. City of Kalamazoo
green
2 sentences2018In Laster, 746 F3d at 732 , the plaintiff employee presented evidence that after filing a complaint with human resources in 2007 regarding what he felt was a racially discriminatory action, Plaintiff was denied training opportunities and privileges, singled out for violating at least two department policies that were selectively enforced against him, and disciplined more harshly than his peers for identical violations. 2018In Laster, 746 F3d at 732 , the plaintiff employee presented evidence that after filing a complaint with human resources in 2007 regarding what he felt was a racially discriminatory action, Plaintiff was denied training opportunities and privileges, singled out for violating at least two department policies that were selectively enforced against him, and disciplined more harshly than his peers for identical violations. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Orzel v. Scott Drug Co.
green
2 sentences2005Orzel v Scott Drug Co, 449 Mich 550, 557-558 ; 537 NW2d 208 (1995). 2005Orzel v Scott Drug Co, 449 Mich 550, 557-558 ; 537 NW2d 208 (1995). | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Elezovic v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences2004We note that in Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 259 Mich App 187, 202 ; 673 NW2d 776 (2003), this Court concluded that “under the controlling legal principles regarding sexual harassment under Michigan law, Chambers, supra at 313 , the Legislature did not intend to preclude individual liability for sexual harassment.” The Elezovic panel, however, recognized its obligation to abide by Jager under MCR 7.215(J)(1), and ruled accordingly. 2004We note that in Elezovic v Ford Motor Co, 259 Mich App 187, 202 ; 673 NW2d 776 (2003), this Court concluded that “under the controlling legal principles regarding sexual harassment under Michigan law, Chambers, supra at 313 , the Legislature did not intend to preclude individual liability for sexual harassment.” The Elezovic panel, however, recognized its obligation to abide by Jager under MCR 7.215(J)(1), and ruled accordingly. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Chambers v. Trettco, Inc
green
2 sentences2004With respect to the retaliation claim, MCL 37.2701(a) of the CRA provides, in relevant part, that a person shall not “[r]etaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act.” The trial court ruled that Jager , in which this Court held “that the CRA provides solely for employer liability,” id. at 485 , precluded any claim of individual liability under the CRA. 2004With respect to the retaliation claim, MCL 37.2701(a) of the CRA provides, in relevant part, that a person shall not "[r]etaliate or discriminate against a person because the person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the person has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this act." The trial court ruled that Jager , in which this Court held "that the CRA provides solely for employer liability," id. at 485 , 652 N.W.2d 503 , precluded any claim of individual liability under the CRA. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Phillips v. Butterball Farms Co.
green
2 sentences2024MCL 418.301(13) provides as follows: A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. 2 “Mr. Charlie” is presumably Charles Bugg, Durham’s operations supervisor. -2- This Court in Cuddington v United Health Services, Inc, 298 Mich App 264, 275 ; 826 NW2d 519 (2012), summarized the approach to analyzing a retaliation claim: In Phil 2024MCL 418.301(13) provides as follows: A person shall not discharge an employee or in any manner discriminate against an employee because the employee filed a complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted a proceeding under this act or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of himself or herself or others of a right afforded by this act. 2 “Mr. Charlie” is presumably Charles Bugg, Durham’s operations supervisor. -2- This Court in Cuddington v United Health Services, Inc, 298 Mich App 264, 275 ; 826 NW2d 519 (2012), summarized the approach to analyzing a retaliation claim: In Phil | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP
green
1 sentence2022Thompson, 562 US at 172-173 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Ditmore v. Michalik green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Meyer v. City of Center Line green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Hazle v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2020Hazel, 464 Mich at 462-463 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Bachman v. Swan Harbour Associates green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| FILLMORE TP. v. Secretary of State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Feick v. Monroe County green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Brown v. Mayor of Detroit green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Shallal v. Catholic Social Services green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Mansfield v. Peake green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Monica L. McDowell Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian Church Will Ackles green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Tyrna v. Adamo, Inc green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.