Complainant, aka Ela O., v. Dep't of the Treasury

6 Cited authorities

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

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,663 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 1,623 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. Henson v. City of Dundee

    682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 979 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
  4. Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Serv

    247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 390 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is evidence of disability-based harassment when a supervisor hovers around an employee's work area, eavesdrops on her conversations, and intercepts her phone calls
  5. Fox v. General Motors Corp.

    247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001)   Cited 363 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff presented evidence of "objectively severe and pervasive workplace harassment" under the ADA where the plaintiff had offered "a good deal of evidence that [his] supervisors ... in vulgar and profane language, constantly berated and harassed him and the other" workers with disabilities and that this harassment "occurred at least weekly"
  6. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,019 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"