[Redacted], Madlyn F. 1, and Breshna Omarkhel a/k/a Lashawn C., Complainants, v. Kelu Chao Acting Chief Executive Officer, US Agency for Global Media, Agency.

25 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,201 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,440 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
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"
Faragher v. Boca Raton
524 U.S. 775 (1998) Cited 9,322 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,287 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,012 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998) Cited 7,132 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"
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"
U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,407 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
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,165 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 51,702 times 129 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose
29 U.S.C. § 621 Cited 17,511 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
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"
Section 1614.407 - Civil action: Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Rehabilitation Act, Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
29 C.F.R. § 1614.407 Cited 738 times 1 Legal Analyses
Authorizing civil actions if no final action is taken within 180 days after a complaint is filed
Section 1614.107 - Dismissals of complaints
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107 Cited 472 times 5 Legal Analyses
Explaining the notice requirements for partial dismissal of claims in an EEO complaint
Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110 Cited 226 times 1 Legal Analyses
Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”
Section 1614.108 - Investigation of complaints
29 C.F.R. § 1614.108 Cited 179 times 2 Legal Analyses
Describing inquisitorial nature of investigation process
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 137 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1614.408 - Civil action: Equal Pay Act
29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 Cited 113 times
Requiring that the complainant wait at least 180 days for a decision from the agency before filing a civil action and requiring that such an action be filed within 90 days of a final decision
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 81 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1614.503 - Enforcement of final Commission decisions
29 C.F.R. § 1614.503 Cited 63 times
Describing civil action for enforcement of administrative award
Section 1614.409 - Effect of filing a civil action
29 C.F.R. § 1614.409 Cited 50 times
Stating that: "Filing a civil action under § 1614.408 or § 1614.409 shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal"
Section 1614.501 - Remedies and relief
29 C.F.R. § 1614.501 Cited 42 times 3 Legal Analyses
Incorporating § 1920 into the regulations

[Redacted], Madlyn F. 1, and Breshna Omarkhel a/k/a Lashawn C., Complainants, v. Kelu Chao Acting Chief Executive Officer, US Agency for Global Media, Agency.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

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

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

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

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

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 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

Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"

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

Authorizing civil actions if no final action is taken within 180 days after a complaint is filed

Explaining the notice requirements for partial dismissal of claims in an EEO complaint

Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”

Describing inquisitorial nature of investigation process

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Requiring that the complainant wait at least 180 days for a decision from the agency before filing a civil action and requiring that such an action be filed within 90 days of a final decision

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Describing civil action for enforcement of administrative award

Stating that: "Filing a civil action under § 1614.408 or § 1614.409 shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal"

Incorporating § 1920 into the regulations