Alice Jackson, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,575 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
  2. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,614 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
  3. Grant v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.

    622 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 338 times
    Holding that plaintiff established causal connection despite an eight-month lapse in time when the defendant was unable to retaliate any sooner under the circumstances
  4. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology

    545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)   Cited 248 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"
  5. Smith v. Monsanto Chemical Co.

    770 F.2d 719 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 96 times
    Finding much stronger comparative evidence insufficient as a matter of law
  6. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation, Etc.

    425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement
  7. Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland

    518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975)   Cited 46 times
    In Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975), a case involving a claim of racially discriminatory dismissal and conditions of employment, this Court reiterated the McDonnell Douglas prima facie standard.