Emmet W. v. Dep't of Agric.

8 Cited authorities

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,618 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
424 U.S. 747 (1976) Cited 1,097 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement
West v. Gibson
527 U.S. 212 (1999) Cited 112 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated
Tompkins v. Cyr
202 F.3d 770 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 182 times
Holding sanctions properly denied where Rule 11 motion filed after trial's conclusion
Cygnar v. City of Chicago
865 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 168 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations
Williamson v. Handy Button Mach. Co.
817 F.2d 1290 (7th Cir. 1987) Cited 162 times
Holding that plaintiff's failure to ask for prejudgment interest until after the verdict had been returned is not dispositive of the issue as to whether plaintiff is entitled to it
Maurer v. United States
668 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1981) Cited 39 times
Holding that "a defendant causing a subsequent injury is entitled to have the plaintiff's damages discounted to reflect the proportion of damages that would have been suffered even in the absence of the subsequent injury"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,956 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"

Emmet W. v. Dep't of Agric.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

Holding that the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated

Holding sanctions properly denied where Rule 11 motion filed after trial's conclusion

Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations

Holding that plaintiff's failure to ask for prejudgment interest until after the verdict had been returned is not dispositive of the issue as to whether plaintiff is entitled to it

Holding that "a defendant causing a subsequent injury is entitled to have the plaintiff's damages discounted to reflect the proportion of damages that would have been suffered even in the absence of the subsequent injury"

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