§

Wilda M. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

EEOC Appeal No. 0120142660 (E.E.O.C. Dec. 2, 2016)
Wilda M. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Hensley v. Eckerhart

    461 U.S. 424 (1983)   Cited 21,692 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding a civil-rights plaintiff can recover attorney's fees for claims that "involve a common core of facts or will be based on related legal theories," even if only one of those claims arises under a fee-shifting statute

  2. Blum v. Stenson

    465 U.S. 886 (1984)   Cited 8,879 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that fee shifting is “to be calculated according to the prevailing market rates in the relevant community, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by private or nonprofit counsel”

  3. Farrar v. Hobby

    506 U.S. 103 (1992)   Cited 3,588 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an award of nominal damages, but not purely declaratory relief, suffices for prevailing party status

  4. Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

    422 U.S. 405 (1975)   Cited 2,618 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

  5. Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.

    424 U.S. 747 (1976)   Cited 1,097 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

  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"