§

Peter Cano, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

0120073265 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 8, 2009)
Peter Cano, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Western Area), Agency.

6 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 52,406 times   95 Legal Analyses
    Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

  2. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,387 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

  3. Faragher v. Boca Raton

    524 U.S. 775 (1998)   Cited 9,319 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

  4. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth

    524 U.S. 742 (1998)   Cited 7,129 times   92 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"

  5. Henson v. City of Dundee

    682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 977 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment

  6. Kimzey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    107 F.3d 568 (8th Cir. 1997)   Cited 169 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Title VII damages cap does not apply to discrimination claims under state law