concluding that Price Waterhouse applies whether the plaintiff is stereotyped as too feminine or too masculine, because in both cases, women "face . . . employers [who] demand that they perform both `masculine' and `feminine' roles, yet perceive those roles as fundamentally incompatible"
Summary of this case from Back v. Hastings on Hudson Un. Free Sch. DistNo. 02-1489.
October 6, 2003.
C.A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 49 Fed. Appx. 533.
concluding that Price Waterhouse applies whether the plaintiff is stereotyped as too feminine or too masculine, because in both cases, women "face . . . employers [who] demand that they perform both `masculine' and `feminine' roles, yet perceive those roles as fundamentally incompatible"
Summary of this case from Back v. Hastings on Hudson Un. Free Sch. DistFull title:HOLLINS v. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Court:U.S.
Date published: Oct 6, 2003
AT T does not move to compel arbitration of the claims of one of its residential customers, Roger Gerdes.…
Shepherd v. BCBG Max Azria Grp., Inc.Instead, the non-moving party must "cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record" to show that "a…