Case Citator › Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore

Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Fourth Circuit
Citation
787 F.3d 243
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
32 of 32
Citing cases (total)
32
Treatment dates
2018
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. All 32 flagged citations have been read. The Fourth Circuit continues to apply Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore's retaliation framework.
More on how this was screened

In Strothers v. City of Laurel, however, it criticized Foster's description of a retaliatory act as an “adverse employment action,” explaining that retaliation can also occur outside the workplace. Strothers said that wording was unnecessary to Foster's result. That narrow criticism is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

32 later cases cite Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore; 32 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Fourth Circuit rejected Foster's “adverse employment action” wording for a retaliation claim because actionable retaliation need not involve an employment or workplace action; it said the wording was unnecessary to Foster's result.

    Strothers v. City of Laurel · Fourth Circuit · filed

    We note that some cases in this Circuit have continued to recite the standard of a retaliation claim as requiring an “adverse employment action” or activity rather than simply an “adverse action.” See, e.g., Foster, 787 F.3d at 250; Boyer-Liberto, 786 F.3d at 281. In those cases, the “adverse employment action” standard does not appear to have been necessary to the outcome, and as another panel of this Court has recognized, that formulation was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Foster v. University of Maryland-Eastern Shore and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace