- Search with
- Parallel SearchEnter a full sentence between 5 and 30 words to find cases with conceptually similar sentences
- or
- Keyword SearchEnter keyword terms, accompanied by optional Boolean connectors
- ANDfraud AND damagesBoth terms in document
- ORcar OR automobileEither term in document
- NOTinfringement NOT patentTerm must not appear in document
- """due diligence"Exact match
- ()appeal AND (verdict OR judgment)Grouping terms
- *withdr*wSingle letter wildcard (withdraw, withdrew)
- !infring!Root expander (infringe, infringed, infringing)
- /ninvestor /5 diligenceTerms within n words of each other
- /sfees /s reasonableTerms within same sentence
- /padmissible /p warrantTerms within the same paragraph
Azbell v. Wilkie
NO. 3:15-cv-00983 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 3, 2019) Azbell v. Wilkie
1 Citing case
Jara v. Tenn. State Univ.
3:20-cv-00131 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 3, 2022) Cited 1 timesNoting to defeat summary judgment at the pretext stage, the "plaintiff must produce sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably reject the defendant's explanation and infer that the defendant intentionally discriminated against him."
These two provisions are referred to as the “opposition” clause and the “participation” clause, respectively. Azbell v. Wilkie, No. 3:15-CV-00983, 2019 WL 4887199, at *2 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 3, 2019). An employee is said to have engaged in “protected conduct” (or “protected activity”) if he or she engaged in the conduct (the “oppos[ition]”) reflected in the opposition clause or engaged in the conduct (the “participat[ion]”) reflected in the participation clause.