Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), Agency.

14 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,213 times 96 Legal Analyses
Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,643 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 12,391 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 20,204 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"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,180 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
McKinney v. Dole
765 F.2d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 144 times
Holding that sexual harassment, to be illegal, "need not take the form of sexual advances or of other incidents with clearly sexual overtones"
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 52,487 times 130 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs
29 U.S.C. § 794 Cited 12,646 times 30 Legal Analyses
Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities
29 U.S.C. § 791 Cited 2,303 times 6 Legal Analyses
Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
Section 1630.14 - Medical examinations and inquiries specifically permitted
29 C.F.R. § 1630.14 Cited 238 times 41 Legal Analyses
Providing that medical examinations would be deemed involuntary under ADA if employee's participation has effect of greater than 30% of total cost of "self-only" health coverage, and that insurance safe harbor does not apply to wellness programs
Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110 Cited 229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 140 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 83 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1630.13 - Prohibited medical examinations and inquiries
29 C.F.R. § 1630.13 Cited 60 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating the general rule that, except as permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14, "it is unlawful for a covered entity to require a medical examination of an employee"

Complainant, v. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security (Customs and Border Protection), Agency.

14 Cited authorities

Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

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 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 sexual harassment, to be illegal, "need not take the form of sexual advances or of other incidents with clearly sexual overtones"

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims

Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."

Providing that medical examinations would be deemed involuntary under ADA if employee's participation has effect of greater than 30% of total cost of "self-only" health coverage, and that insurance safe harbor does not apply to wellness programs

Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Stating the general rule that, except as permitted by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14, "it is unlawful for a covered entity to require a medical examination of an employee"