38 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 236,816 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,828 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,381 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White
548 U.S. 53 (2006) Cited 11,286 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"
Fox v. Vice
563 U.S. 826 (2011) Cited 1,798 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"
Pa. State Police v. Suders
542 U.S. 129 (2004) Cited 1,856 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a hostile-work-environment claim is a "lesser included component" of the "graver claim of hostile-environment constructive discharge"
LeMaire v. Louisiana Dept. of Trans
480 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2007) Cited 761 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a two-day suspension without pay was an adverse employment action in the retaliation context
Smith v. Amedisys Inc.
298 F.3d 434 (5th Cir. 2002) Cited 725 times
Holding that "summary judgment was appropriate" where no dispute of material fact existed about the validity of a waiver of claims
General Universal Systems, Inc. v. Lee
379 F.3d 131 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 612 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding party "may not use a Rule 60(b) motion as an occasion to relitigate its case"
Willis v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.
61 F.3d 313 (5th Cir. 1995) Cited 715 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no preemption of state law defamation claim where plaintiff was placed on restrictive work leave for positive drug testing, because the claim did not require interpretation of the CBA, even though the CBA governed plaintiffs employment and included a substance abuse policy
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 329,613 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law
42 U.S.C. § 1981 Cited 38,005 times 242 Legal Analyses
Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race
Section 1988 - Proceedings in vindication of civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1988 Cited 21,832 times 43 Legal Analyses
Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)
Section 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1985 Cited 19,897 times 10 Legal Analyses
Concerning conspiracies to obstruct justice or intimidate a party, witness, or juror
Section 12102 - Definition of disability
42 U.S.C. § 12102 Cited 10,824 times 40 Legal Analyses
Recognizing ADA claim where plaintiff is "regarded as" disabled

Breland v. Woodhouse Day Spa et al

38 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"

Holding that district courts "may use estimates in calculating and allocating an attorney's time[, a]nd appellate courts must give substantial deference to these determinations"

Holding that a hostile-work-environment claim is a "lesser included component" of the "graver claim of hostile-environment constructive discharge"

Holding that a two-day suspension without pay was an adverse employment action in the retaliation context

Holding that "summary judgment was appropriate" where no dispute of material fact existed about the validity of a waiver of claims

Holding party "may not use a Rule 60(b) motion as an occasion to relitigate its case"

Finding no preemption of state law defamation claim where plaintiff was placed on restrictive work leave for positive drug testing, because the claim did not require interpretation of the CBA, even though the CBA governed plaintiffs employment and included a substance abuse policy

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race

Finding that 28 U.S.C. § 1920 defines the term "costs" as used in Rule 54(d) and enumerates the expenses that a federal court may tax as a cost under the discretionary authority granted in Rule 54(d)

Concerning conspiracies to obstruct justice or intimidate a party, witness, or juror

Recognizing ADA claim where plaintiff is "regarded as" disabled