§

David A. Wagner, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Area), Agency.

01971529 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 29, 2000)
David A. Wagner, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Allegheny/Mid-Atlantic Area), Agency.

4 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,671 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 "

  2. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,624 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"

  3. Section 1920 - False statement or fraud to obtain Federal employees' compensation

    18 U.S.C. § 1920   Cited 170 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Penalizing false statement to obtain Federal employees' compensation

  4. 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 874 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