§

Erline S. v. Dep't of Justice

EEOC Appeal No. 0120160618 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 22, 2018)
Erline S. v. Dep't of Justice

6 Cited authorities

  1. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,384 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

  2. Faragher v. Boca Raton

    524 U.S. 775 (1998)   Cited 9,317 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

  3. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth

    524 U.S. 742 (1998)   Cited 7,129 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"

  4. Henson v. City of Dundee

    682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 977 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment

  5. Walker v. Ford Motor Co.

    684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 157 times
    Holding that plaintiff established hostile environment where racial harassment made plaintiff “feel unwanted and uncomfortable in his surroundings,” even though it was not directed at him

  6. 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"