§

John M. Scorcia, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (NE/NY Region), Agency.

01974174 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 27, 2000)
John M. Scorcia, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (NE/NY Region), Agency.

4 Cited authorities

  1. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens

    460 U.S. 711 (1983)   Cited 2,406 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony to the employer's mental process," evidence of the employer's discriminatory attitude in general is relevant and admissible to prove discrimination

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

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,575 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 "

  3. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,614 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"

  4. Appendix to Part 1630 - Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act

    29 C.F.R. § 1630 app to Part 1630   Cited 860 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact