Gaynell A., Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
490 U.S. 228 (1989) Cited 4,664 times 164 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,707 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 "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,630 times 5 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"
Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co.
747 F.2d 885 (3d Cir. 1984) Cited 371 times
Holding that the wrongdoer bore any risk of the uncertainty of the aggrieved plaintiff's award
Shore v. Federal Express Corp.
777 F.2d 1155 (6th Cir. 1985) Cited 149 times
Affirming district court's order that reinstatement of successful Title VII plaintiff was not feasible because reinstatement of plaintiff would displace the person who had held the position since plaintiff's termination and there were no comparable positions available
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 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"

Gaynell A., Complainant, v. Ray Mabus, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"

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

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 "

Pullman-Standard v. Swint

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"

Goss v. Exxon Office Systems Co.

Holding that the wrongdoer bore any risk of the uncertainty of the aggrieved plaintiff's award

Shore v. Federal Express Corp.

Affirming district court's order that reinstatement of successful Title VII plaintiff was not feasible because reinstatement of plaintiff would displace the person who had held the position since plaintiff's termination and there were no comparable positions available

Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

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