Carmen G. Avila, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

11 Cited authorities

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,763 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,448 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,306 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson
477 U.S. 57 (1986) Cited 6,637 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
490 U.S. 228 (1989) Cited 4,664 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,188 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context
Espinoza v. Farah Mfg. Co.
414 U.S. 86 (1973) Cited 472 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title VII—which forbids employment discrimination "because of . . . race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"—did not "make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of citizenship or alienage"
Henson v. City of Dundee
682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 984 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment
Walker v. Ford Motor Co.
684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 158 times
Holding that plaintiff established hostile environment where racial harassment made plaintiff “feel unwanted and uncomfortable in his surroundings,” even though it was not directed at him
Odima v. Westin Tucson Hotel Co.
991 F.2d 595 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 48 times
Holding that the plaintiff's superior qualifications standing alone were enough to prove pretext
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Carmen G. Avila, Complainant, v. Gordon R. England, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

11 Cited authorities

Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive

Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"

Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context

Holding that Title VII—which forbids employment discrimination "because of . . . race, color, religion, sex, or national origin"—did not "make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of citizenship or alienage"

Holding that plaintiff established hostile environment where racial harassment made plaintiff “feel unwanted and uncomfortable in his surroundings,” even though it was not directed at him

Holding that the plaintiff's superior qualifications standing alone were enough to prove pretext

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"