24 Cited authorities

Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC
446 U.S. 318 (1980) Cited 1,388 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shell Oil Co.
466 U.S. 54 (1984) Cited 350 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the dominant purpose of Title VII is to root out discrimination in employment
Parkins v. Civil Constructors of Ill.
163 F.3d 1027 (7th Cir. 1998) Cited 566 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that employer exercised reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment where it adopted a policy prohibiting sexual harassment which provided multiple complaint mechanisms
Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson Co.
971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 629 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant's description of its product as "rice-based," which in context was a "term of art used to describe oral electrolyte solutions made from rice grain powder," was literally false because the product contained "rice syrup solids" but not "powdered whole rice"
Hall v. Bodine Elec. Co.
276 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2002) Cited 397 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the alleged harassor's "marginal discretion" over the harasee's work operations was "not sufficient to impute Title VII vicarious liability to an employer"
Meridian Mutual Insurance v. Meridian Insurance Group
128 F.3d 1111 (7th Cir. 1997) Cited 198 times
Finding Meridian Insurance Group confusingly similar to Meridian Mutual Insurance Company because " person hearing the two parties' names would likely focus on the word 'Meridian' and gloss over the other words, and the parties are therefore using essentially the same mark"
U.S. v. Balter
91 F.3d 427 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 188 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that permitting a comment that "attempted to focus the jury's attention on holes in the defense's theory" was not plain error
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Astra USA, Inc.
94 F.3d 738 (1st Cir. 1996) Cited 123 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that settlement agreements prohibiting employees who had made sexual harassment claims from discussing the incidents that gave rise to their claim with EEOC investigators are void as against public policy
Velez v. City of Chicago
442 F.3d 1043 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 91 times
Holding evidence of derogatory statements was not probative of discriminatory animus where there was no evidence of a causal connection between the statements and the adverse employment action
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cosmair, Inc.
821 F.2d 1085 (5th Cir. 1987) Cited 112 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a former employee was protected from his employer's discontinuance of severance pay under the ADEA's anti-retaliation provision
Section 2000e-5 - Enforcement provisions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 Cited 26,973 times 124 Legal Analyses
Holding charges must be made in writing, under oath, and contain all information as the Commission requires
Rule 65 - Injunctions and Restraining Orders
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 Cited 22,586 times 87 Legal Analyses
Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice
Section 201 - Short title
29 U.S.C. § 201 Cited 21,020 times 104 Legal Analyses
Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work
Section 2000e-8 - Investigations
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8 Cited 392 times 26 Legal Analyses
Authorizing the EEOC to "enter into written agreements" with state and local agencies to promote "effective enforcement" of the Act
Section 541.200 - [Effective until 7/1/2024] General rule for administrative employees
29 C.F.R. § 541.200 Cited 899 times 92 Legal Analyses
Providing that the administrative exemption can also apply if the employee’s primary duty is directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer’s customers

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Aerotek, Inc.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"

Holding that the dominant purpose of Title VII is to root out discrimination in employment

Holding that employer exercised reasonable care to prevent sexual harassment where it adopted a policy prohibiting sexual harassment which provided multiple complaint mechanisms

Holding that the defendant's description of its product as "rice-based," which in context was a "term of art used to describe oral electrolyte solutions made from rice grain powder," was literally false because the product contained "rice syrup solids" but not "powdered whole rice"

Holding that the alleged harassor's "marginal discretion" over the harasee's work operations was "not sufficient to impute Title VII vicarious liability to an employer"

Finding Meridian Insurance Group confusingly similar to Meridian Mutual Insurance Company because " person hearing the two parties' names would likely focus on the word 'Meridian' and gloss over the other words, and the parties are therefore using essentially the same mark"

Holding that permitting a comment that "attempted to focus the jury's attention on holes in the defense's theory" was not plain error

Holding that settlement agreements prohibiting employees who had made sexual harassment claims from discussing the incidents that gave rise to their claim with EEOC investigators are void as against public policy

Holding evidence of derogatory statements was not probative of discriminatory animus where there was no evidence of a causal connection between the statements and the adverse employment action

Holding that a former employee was protected from his employer's discontinuance of severance pay under the ADEA's anti-retaliation provision

Holding charges must be made in writing, under oath, and contain all information as the Commission requires

Recognizing court's ability to enter emergency order with less than full adversary hearing and even, in appropriate circumstances, without notice

Setting fourteen as the minimum age for most non-agricultural work

Authorizing the EEOC to "enter into written agreements" with state and local agencies to promote "effective enforcement" of the Act

Providing that the administrative exemption can also apply if the employee’s primary duty is directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer’s customers