§

Valentin P., et al. v. Dep't of the Army

EEOC Appeal NO. 0120113722 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 6, 2016)
Valentin P., et al. v. Dep't of the Army

5 Cited authorities

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

    457 U.S. 147 (1982)   Cited 5,700 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. Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC

    446 U.S. 318 (1980)   Cited 1,389 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"

  3. Zeidman v. J. Ray McDermott Co., Inc.

    651 F.2d 1030 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 423 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]he controversy involved in this case is undoubtedly still live" in a putative securities class action because "[t]he classes which the plaintiffs seek to represent contain at least some number of persons who sold securities during the periods at issue"

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

    74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977)   Cited 79 times
    Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices

  5. 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"