§

Donna Mitchell, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appeal No. 01A03170 Agency No. 1B-021-0001-99 Hearing No. 160-99-8279X

01a03170 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 31, 2001)
Donna Mitchell, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Appeal No. 01A03170 Agency No. 1B-021-0001-99 Hearing No. 160-99-8279X

8 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 240,420 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

  2. Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp.

    846 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1988)   Cited 413 times
    Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer

  3. Gardner v. Morris

    752 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 84 times
    Holding that an accommodation was not required under the Rehabilitation Act when it would endanger the plaintiff

  4. Ralph v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.

    135 F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 1998)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that "the present controversy concerns the plaintiff's rights under state and federal statutes which exist independently of the collective bargaining agreement and do not require interpretation of that agreement"

  5. Spangle v. Valley Forge Sewer Authority

    839 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1988)   Cited 59 times
    Affirming grant of summary judgment where employee presented no evidence to show he was qualified for the job

  6. Redman v. Warrener

    516 F.2d 766 (1st Cir. 1975)   Cited 16 times
    In Redman v. Warrener, 516 F.2d 766, 768 (1st Cir. 1975), we admonished: "Summary judgment is not to be turned into a trial by affidavit."

  7. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,013 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"

  8. 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 871 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