Damita J. Fulghen, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

6 Cited authorities

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa
539 U.S. 90 (2003) Cited 2,461 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a mixed-motive verdict
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
490 U.S. 228 (1989) Cited 4,616 times 161 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,575 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 "
McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co.
513 U.S. 352 (1995) Cited 1,184 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that, under the ADEA, neither reinstatement nor front pay is appropriate when, subsequent to the statutory violation, the plaintiff's employment has been terminated for legitimate reasons
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,614 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"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,954 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"

Damita J. Fulghen, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

6 Cited authorities

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa

Holding that circumstantial evidence alone can sustain a mixed-motive verdict

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"

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 "

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ'g Co.

Holding that, under the ADEA, neither reinstatement nor front pay is appropriate when, subsequent to the statutory violation, the plaintiff's employment has been terminated for legitimate reasons

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"

Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"