No. 25-5966
Mally Gage v. Mayo Clinic, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights-act due-process motion-to-dismiss pro-se-litigant religious-accommodation title-vii
Key Terms:
DueProcess EmploymentDiscrimina
DueProcess EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference:
2025-12-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether employers can demand statements of apostasy and restrict religious communication under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and whether pro se litigants must use specific language to overcome a motion to dismiss under the Due Process Clause
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
1) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, can employers demand statements of apostasy as well as set restrictions on how an employee can communicate their religious beliefs or accommodation needs as a condition of employment? 2) Under the Due Process Clause and this Court ’s precedents, what magic words are needed to overcome a motion to dismiss for a pro se litigant?
Docket Entries
2025-12-08
Petition DENIED.
2025-11-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
2025-11-06
Waiver of right of respondent Mayo Clinic, et al. to respond filed.
2025-10-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 26, 2025)
Attorneys
Mayo Clinic, et al.
Amelia Anne McDermott — Littler Mendelson, P.C., Respondent
Amelia Anne McDermott — Littler Mendelson, P.C., Respondent