Clinton R.,1 Complainant, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,396 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998) Cited 7,132 times 92 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,178 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson
477 U.S. 57 (1986) Cited 6,509 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
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,577 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 "
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,165 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
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,615 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"

Clinton R.,1 Complainant, v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

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

Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.

Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson

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

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

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 "

Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

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

Pullman-Standard v. Swint

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"