24 Cited authorities

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White
548 U.S. 53 (2006) Cited 11,243 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"
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
455 U.S. 385 (1982) Cited 3,693 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Title VII limitations period should be construed to "honor the remedial purpose of the legislation as a whole without negating the particular purpose of the filing requirement"
Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp.
706 F.3d 157 (3d Cir. 2013) Cited 897 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that any claims alleging retaliation were barred because the plaintiff did not check the box for retaliation or describe any retaliatory conduct in the Charge
Weston v. Pennsylvania
251 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. 2001) Cited 1,021 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they had not caused a "material change in the terms or conditions of his employment"
Rochon v. Gonzales
438 F.3d 1211 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Cited 727 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the federal government faces the same standards of liability for retaliation under Title VII as a private employer
O'Connor v. City of Newark
440 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2006) Cited 616 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding time-barred claims “cannot be resurrected by being aggregated and labeled continuing violations”
Robinson v. Dalton
107 F.3d 1018 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 725 times
Holding that "exhaustion requires . . . consultation with an agency counselor" within those forty-five days
Anjelino v. New York Times Co.
200 F.3d 73 (3d Cir. 1999) Cited 603 times
Holding that the statutory plan of Title VII was aimed at correcting discrimination through informal administrative conciliation
Antol v. Perry
82 F.3d 1291 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 610 times
Holding that the investigation "quite properly" focused on Antol's disability discrimination claim
Johnson Bronze Co. v. Ostapowicz
429 U.S. 1041 (1977) Cited 304 times
Holding that where "defendant did not request a continuance or in any way claim that he was unable adequately to prepare to meet the rebuttal testimony [it] further militates against a finding that he was prejudiced by it."
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,885 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Howze v. City of Pittsburgh

24 Cited authorities

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 the Title VII limitations period should be construed to "honor the remedial purpose of the legislation as a whole without negating the particular purpose of the filing requirement"

Holding that any claims alleging retaliation were barred because the plaintiff did not check the box for retaliation or describe any retaliatory conduct in the Charge

Holding written reprimands were not adverse employment actions because they had not caused a "material change in the terms or conditions of his employment"

Holding that the federal government faces the same standards of liability for retaliation under Title VII as a private employer

Holding time-barred claims “cannot be resurrected by being aggregated and labeled continuing violations”

Holding that "exhaustion requires . . . consultation with an agency counselor" within those forty-five days

Holding that the statutory plan of Title VII was aimed at correcting discrimination through informal administrative conciliation

Holding that the investigation "quite properly" focused on Antol's disability discrimination claim

Holding that where "defendant did not request a continuance or in any way claim that he was unable adequately to prepare to meet the rebuttal testimony [it] further militates against a finding that he was prejudiced by it."

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss