§

Ronald Jantz, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

0720090019 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 25, 2010)
Ronald Jantz, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,779 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23

  2. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

    603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010)   Cited 253 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Arguing that inadmissible expert testimony cannot be used to meet Rule 23

  3. Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

    74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977)   Cited 80 times
    Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices

  4. Rule 23 - Class Actions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23   Cited 36,028 times   1252 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

  5. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,026 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"