U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (E.E.O.C.) Office of Federal Operations * * * TRINA C., COMPLAINANT, v. MEGAN J. BRENNAN, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, AGENCY.

6 Cited authorities

  1. 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"
  2. 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
  3. 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"
  4. 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 "
  5. 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"
  6. 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"