Willia M. and Alonzo N.,1 Complainants v. Margaret Weichert, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management, Agency Appeal Nos. 0120132419, 0120132420 Hearing Nos. 100-A2-7218X, 100A27219X Agency No. EOP-99-03

7 Cited authorities

Bragdon v. Abbott
524 U.S. 624 (1998) Cited 1,645 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,575 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 "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,614 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"
E.E.O.C. v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
243 F.3d 846 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 322 times
Holding that an employer's provision of shifting and inconsistent justifications for taking an adverse employment action “is, in and of itself, probative of pretext”
University Hosp. Cleveland v. Emerson Electric
202 F.3d 839 (6th Cir. 2000) Cited 324 times
Holding that a plan administrator's conflict of interest is a factor to consider when reviewing for whether the administrator's decision was arbitrary or capricious
Tyler v. RE/MAX Mountain States, Inc.
232 F.3d 808 (10th Cir. 2000) Cited 164 times
Holding it is sufficient for the plaintiff to cast general doubt on the employer's reasons for her termination so that "the jury could reasonably find the employer lacks credibility"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,954 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"

Willia M. and Alonzo N.,1 Complainants v. Margaret Weichert, Acting Director, Office of Personnel Management, Agency Appeal Nos. 0120132419, 0120132420 Hearing Nos. 100-A2-7218X, 100A27219X Agency No. EOP-99-03

7 Cited authorities

Bragdon v. Abbott

Holding that DOJ's administrative guidance on ADA compliance is entitled to deference

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

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 "

Pullman-Standard v. Swint

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"

E.E.O.C. v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Holding that an employer's provision of shifting and inconsistent justifications for taking an adverse employment action “is, in and of itself, probative of pretext”

University Hosp. Cleveland v. Emerson Electric

Holding that a plan administrator's conflict of interest is a factor to consider when reviewing for whether the administrator's decision was arbitrary or capricious

Tyler v. RE/MAX Mountain States, Inc.

Holding it is sufficient for the plaintiff to cast general doubt on the employer's reasons for her termination so that "the jury could reasonably find the employer lacks credibility"

Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

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