Complainant, v. John M. McHugh, Secretary, Department of the Army (National Guard Bureau), Agency.

22 Cited authorities

  1. Feres v. United States

    340 U.S. 135 (1950)   Cited 1,463 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service"
  2. Overton v. New York State Div. of Military

    373 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 313 times
    Holding Feres barred Title VII suit that "would likely intrude into" the plaintiff's "nominally civilian, yet distinctly military, relationship" with his superior
  3. Gregory v. Widnall

    153 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1998)   Cited 165 times
    Holding that res judicata bars consideration of a hostile work environment claim that could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties
  4. Mier v. Owens

    57 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 170 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "Title VII coverage . . . encompasses actions brought by Guard technicians except when the challenged conduct is integrally related to the military's unique structure"
  5. Brown v. U.S.

    227 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2000)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that "claims arising purely from a [dual-status employee's] civilian position are provided for under Title VII; claims that originate from [a dual status employee's] military status, however, are not cognizable."
  6. Jentoft v. U.S.

    450 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 29 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the 1997 Amendments allowed a dual status National Guard technician to bring an Equal Pay Act claim against the military
  7. Leistiko v. Stone

    134 F.3d 817 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 32 times
    Holding that National Guard technician position is irreducibly military in nature
  8. Wetherill v. Geren

    616 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2010)   Cited 11 times

    No. 09-3334. Submitted: June 17, 2010. Filed: August 11, 2010. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Karen E. Schreier, J. Sarah E. Baron Houy, argued, Rapid City, SD, for appellant. Robert Bruce Anderson, argued, Pierre, SD, for Appellees Doohen, Johnson, and The SD Army National Guard. Daneta Wollmann, AUSA, argued, Rapid City, SD, for Appellees Geren and The Army National Guard. Before WOLLMAN, EBEL and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. The Honorable David M. Ebel

  9. Urie v. Roche

    209 F. Supp. 2d 412 (D.N.J. 2002)   Cited 8 times
    Applying the Feres doctrine to prevent Air National Guard technicians from suing their superiors under Title VII
  10. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 52,867 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  11. Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose

    29 U.S.C. § 621   Cited 17,779 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
  12. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,775 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
  13. 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"
  14. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,317 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 . . ."
  15. Section 1614.407 - Civil action: Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Rehabilitation Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.407   Cited 763 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Authorizing civil actions if no final action is taken within 180 days after a complaint is filed
  16. Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.110   Cited 232 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]”
  17. 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"
  18. Section 1614.109 - Hearings

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.109   Cited 133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing administrative hearings
  19. Section 1614.408 - Civil action: Equal Pay Act

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.408   Cited 113 times
    Requiring that the complainant wait at least 180 days for a decision from the agency before filing a civil action and requiring that such an action be filed within 90 days of a final decision
  20. 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"
  21. Section 1614.503 - Enforcement of final Commission decisions

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.503   Cited 64 times
    Describing civil action for enforcement of administrative award
  22. Section 1614.409 - Effect of filing a civil action

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.409   Cited 51 times
    Stating that: "Filing a civil action under § 1614.408 or § 1614.409 shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal"