Kelvin Booker, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, (Defense Finance Accounting Service), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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 "
  2. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,615 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"
  3. West v. Gibson

    527 U.S. 212 (1999)   Cited 112 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated
  4. Cygnar v. City of Chicago

    865 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 168 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
  5. Williamson v. Handy Button Mach. Co.

    817 F.2d 1290 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 162 times
    Holding that plaintiff's failure to ask for prejudgment interest until after the verdict had been returned is not dispositive of the issue as to whether plaintiff is entitled to it
  6. Carter v. Duncan-Huggins, Ltd.

    727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that the standards used to determine what constitutes a hostile work environment is the same under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981
  7. Maurer v. United States

    668 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1981)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that "a defendant causing a subsequent injury is entitled to have the plaintiff's damages discounted to reflect the proportion of damages that would have been suffered even in the absence of the subsequent injury"