340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,663 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 "
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
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
Reversing evidentiary ruling that disallowed the testimony of other women's experiences in a Title VII, employment law context because such testimony could help establish that there was a hostile work environment
In Delgado for example, the Eastern District of Virginia held that "[a] prima facie case may be established through a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption...."