§

Dara Katz, Complainant, v. Hilary Rodham Clinton, Secretary, U.S. Department of State, and Alonzo Fulgham Acting Administrator, Agency for International Development, Agencies. Appeal Nos. 0720060024 and 0720060025 (Formerly 07A60024 and 07A60025) Hearing No. 100a38361x Agency No. EOP0206

0720060024_0720060025 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 27, 2009)
Dara Katz, Complainant, v. Hilary Rodham Clinton, Secretary, U.S. Department of State, and Alonzo Fulgham Acting Administrator, Agency for International Development, Agencies. Appeal Nos. 0720060024 and 0720060025 (Formerly 07A60024 and 07A60025) Hearing No. 100a38361x Agency No. EOP0206

19 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 21,681 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

  2. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 8,873 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

  3. Texas Teachers Assn. v. Garland School Dist

    489 U.S. 782 (1989)   Cited 1,873 times
    Holding that where party seeks attorney's fees pursuant to fee-shifting statute, "no fee award is permissible until the [party] has crossed the statutory threshold of prevailing party status" (internal quotation marked omitted)

  4. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal

    536 U.S. 73 (2002)   Cited 329 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the ADA's direct-threat defense may apply not only to “other individuals in the workplace,” as the statute states, but to the disabled individual himself

  5. Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank, F.S.B

    434 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2006)   Cited 310 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elimination of bodily waste is a major life activity under the ADA

  6. Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo Co.

    383 F.3d 779 (8th Cir. 2004)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that plaintiff who underwent dialysis was "incapable of doing activities of central importance to a person's life, such as cleansing one's own blood cells"

  7. National Ass'n of Concerned Veterans v. Secretary of Defense

    675 F.2d 1319 (D.C. Cir. 1982)   Cited 524 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a fee application must "contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done"

  8. Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's diabetes and related medical conditions, which affected “many of the organ systems in his body,” were physical impairments under the ADA

  9. Amir v. St. Louis University

    184 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 1999)   Cited 222 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "St. Louis University maintains both an undergraduate division as well as graduate programs in such areas as law, business, and medicine. Hence, it is a place of public accommodation under the ADA."

  10. Rodriguez v. Conagra Grocery Products Co.

    436 F.3d 468 (5th Cir. 2006)   Cited 173 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding employer's blanket policy against hiring anyone perceived as having uncontrolled diabetes as contradictory to “the TCHRA/ADA's emphasis on treating impaired job applicants as individuals”

  11. 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"

  12. Appendix to Part 1630 - Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act

    29 C.F.R. § 1630 app to Part 1630   Cited 860 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact

  13. Section 550.805 - Back pay computations

    5 C.F.R. § 550.805   Cited 35 times
    Stating that, although "outside earnings ... undertaken to replace" the employment from which an employee has been wrongfully separated should be deducted in calculating backpay, "earnings from additional or ‘moonlight’ employment the employee may have engaged in while Federally employed (before separation) and while erroneously separated" should not be deducted