Lea M. Smith, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.

9 Cited authorities

Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,648 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute
Anderson v. Bessemer City
470 U.S. 564 (1985) Cited 10,730 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous
Blum v. Stenson
465 U.S. 886 (1984) Cited 8,854 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,569 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 1,614 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"
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
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
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
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,948 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"

Lea M. Smith, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast Area), Agency.

9 Cited authorities

Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

Holding that a factfinder's choice between two permissible views of the evidence cannot be clearly erroneous

Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

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 "

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"

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

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

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

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"