Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Supreme Court weighs whether a Texas woman who served on a small-town council can pursue a retaliation claim after she was arrested following her criticisms of a senior official.
Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U.S. 653 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that plaintiffs alleging retaliatory arrest need only provide evidence that their arrest occurred in circumstances where probable cause exists to arrest, but officers typically exercise discretion and decline to arrest. [1]
Gonzalez was arrested in 2019 for allegedly stealing a government document soon after taking office as city council member. [ U.S. Supreme Court hears Texas case on politically motivated arrests ]
The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed a Texas woman who served on a small-town council to continue her lawsuit against her mayor after she was arrested for what she claims were political reasons.
The Court opined that the placement of the mixed-motive test in the status-based discrimination section and not the retaliation section indicated Congress' intent to exclude retaliation claims from that standard. The Court then turned to the text of the retaliation provision and found it similar to the ADEA provision addressed in Gross v.
He alleged the arrest was in retaliation for his outspoken criticism of city officials. The city argued that the logic of Hartman extended to retaliatory arrest. The Supreme Court, however, allowed his claim to proceed, emphasizing that retaliatory intent could be inferred if the arrest was part of an official policy of retaliation. [2] [3] [4 ...
Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eyewitness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way ...
"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Where the plaintiff has shown intentional discrimination in a mixed motive case, the defendant can still avoid liability for money damages by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made even in the absence of the impermissible ...