§

Complainant v. Ashton B. Carter, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency), Agency.

0120140624 (E.E.O.C. May. 21, 2015)
Complainant v. Ashton B. Carter, Secretary, Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency), Agency.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White

    548 U.S. 53 (2006)   Cited 11,763 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"

  2. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.

    523 U.S. 75 (1998)   Cited 5,340 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"

  3. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.

    519 U.S. 337 (1997)   Cited 2,548 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the term “employees” carries a different meaning in different sections of Title VII

  4. Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Serv

    247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001)   Cited 395 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 370 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 5,062 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"