Johnson v. Florida Department of Juvenile Justice et al

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Brown v. Crawford, 906 F.2d 667, 670 (11th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff's response to Defendant DJJ's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Count I, III, IV, V, and VII was then struck by the Court, Dkt. 158, as it cited to hallucinated cases. DISCUSSION See Dkt. 150 at 7, 13, 16 (citing Watson v. Amedisys Holding, LLC, 298 F. App'x 395, 396 (5th Cir. 2008), Martin v. Dep't I. Count I: Retaliation under Title VII of Corrections, 682 So. 2d 331, 333 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), and Defendant DJJ seeks summary judgment on Count I, which Campbell v. DCF, 201 So. 3d 164, 170 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), alleges “unlawful retaliation against the Plaintiff for his which are non-existent). The Court granted Plaintiff leave to protected whistleblowing activities” under Title VII. Dkt. 36 refile his response with proper citations, Dkt. 158, and he did ¶ 93. so. Dkt. 159. Title VII prohibits retaliation against an employee “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice under [Title VII], or because he has made a charge, LEGAL STANDARD testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an A district court should grant summary judgment when it investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII].” 42 determines that there are no genuine issues as to any material U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). A plaintiff may support a claim of

Authorities cited in the passage: x 395, 396 (5th Cir. 2008) || Fabricated: Case Law | Martin v. Dep · Watson v. Amedisys Holding · Martin v. Dep't of Corrections · Brown v. Crawford · Martin v. Dep't I. Count I · Campbell v. DCF