Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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]
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 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 ...
The plaintiff's burden, therefore, is magnified because he will have to proffer convincing evidence analyzing the employer's intent. [11] Consequently, this higher evidentiary burden has created an increased incentive for plaintiffs to allege discrimination under the disparate impact theory where the employer's intent is not at issue.
Texas Department of Public Safety, 597 U.S. 580 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) and state sovereign immunity. In a 5–4 decision issued in June 2022, the Court ruled that state sovereign immunity does not prevent states from being sued ...