§

James R. Eckenrode, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Captial-MetroArea), Agency.

01a42463 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 13, 2005)
James R. Eckenrode, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Captial-MetroArea), Agency.

4 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. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 219,947 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

  3. 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

  4. Section 1630.2 - Definitions

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.2   Cited 8,493 times   141 Legal Analyses
    Holding that major life activity is substantially limited if plaintiff is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities"