Jasmine Y.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,642 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 1,622 times 4 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"
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
424 U.S. 747 (1976) Cited 1,099 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement
West v. Gibson
527 U.S. 212 (1999) Cited 113 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated
Cygnar v. City of Chicago
865 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1989) Cited 169 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations
Haskins v. United States Dept. of Army
808 F.2d 1192 (6th Cir. 1987) Cited 39 times
Recognizing that a plaintiff is "entitled to a de novo hearing if requested" but that "the district court is not bound by the administrative findings."
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,002 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"

Jasmine Y.,1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

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"

Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

West v. Gibson

Holding that the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated

Cygnar v. City of Chicago

Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations

Haskins v. United States Dept. of Army

Recognizing that a plaintiff is "entitled to a de novo hearing if requested" but that "the district court is not bound by the administrative findings."

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"