Fry v. Rand Construction Corp.
Petition for certiorari denied on May 3, 2021
Issue: (1) Whether the lower court erred in adopting what is, in essence, a "sole cause" standard for a "but-for" cause, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court"s holdings in Burrage v. United States and Bostock v. Clayton County; and (2) whether the correct causation standard for petitioner Arlene Fry's Family and Medical Leave Act claim is but-for, motivating factor or negative factor.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- The men-only draft and compelled iPhone passcodes (Andrew Hamm, January 29, 2021)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 12/23/2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 29, 2021) |
| 01/15/2021 | Waiver of right of respondent Rand Construction Corporation to respond filed. |
| 01/20/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021. |
| 01/25/2021 | Response Requested. (Due February 24, 2021) |
| 02/08/2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 24, 2021 to March 26, 2021, submitted to The Clerk. |
| 02/09/2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 26, 2021. |
| 03/26/2021 | Brief of respondent Rand Construction Corporation in opposition filed. |
| 04/08/2021 | Reply of petitioner Arlene Fry filed. |
| 04/14/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021. |
| 05/03/2021 | Petition DENIED. |