§

Janet Howard, et al. Complainant, v. William M. Daley, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.

01994518 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 20, 2000)
Janet Howard, et al. Complainant, v. William M. Daley, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,700 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23

  2. Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC

    446 U.S. 318 (1980)   Cited 1,388 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"

  3. East Texas Motor Freight v. Rodriguez

    431 U.S. 395 (1977)   Cited 1,305 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs who lacked qualifications to be hired as drivers suffered no injury from alleged discriminatory practices and therefore lacked standing to represent class of persons who did suffer injury

  4. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott Co., Inc.

    651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 423 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he controversy involved in this case is undoubtedly still live" in a putative securities class action because "[t]he classes which the plaintiffs seek to represent contain at least some number of persons who sold securities during the periods at issue"

  5. Arkansas Ed. v. B., Ed., Portland, Ar. S. D

    446 F.2d 763 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 151 times
    Holding no abuse of discretion in certifying a class containing approximately twenty individuals

  6. Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

    74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977)   Cited 79 times
    Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices

  7. Darms v. McCulloch Oil Corp.

    720 F.2d 490 (8th Cir. 1983)   Cited 42 times
    Affirming denial of class certification where transactions involved different representations and degrees of reliance “and the defenses raised in the case would necessarily vary based on the circumstances of each purchase”

  8. Smyth v. Carter

    168 F.R.D. 28 (W.D. Va. 1996)   Cited 7 times

    Recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits initiated suit against Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) for violation of Social Security Act, its regulations, and equal protection clause. On recipients' motions for preliminary injunction and class certification, the District Court, Michael, Senior District Judge, held that: (1) preliminary injunction against denying AFDC benefits based solely on recipients' inability to provide paternity information after they attested