Mindy O. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

9 Cited authorities

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White
548 U.S. 53 (2006) Cited 11,322 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar
570 U.S. 338 (2013) Cited 5,256 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that application of the " ‘because’ of" requirement of Title VII's antiretaliation provision requires proof of "but-for" causation
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,396 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Hensley v. Eckerhart
461 U.S. 424 (1983) Cited 21,692 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
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,178 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson
477 U.S. 57 (1986) Cited 6,509 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,577 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 1,615 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"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,956 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"

Mindy O. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"

Holding that application of the " ‘because’ of" requirement of Title VII's antiretaliation provision requires proof of "but-for" causation

Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

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 "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive

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"

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