16 Cited authorities

United States v. Mitchell
445 U.S. 535 (1980) Cited 2,377 times
Holding that the United States does not have a specific fiduciary obligation to manage timber resources on allotted lands, held in trust for Indian-allotees
Brown v. General Services Administration
425 U.S. 820 (1976) Cited 2,258 times
Holding that federal employee who missed deadline for filing Title VII claim could not bring suit based on alleged discriminatory conduct under Declaratory Judgment Act
Jones v. U.P.S
502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2007) Cited 547 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding adverse employment actions occurring after plaintiff filed his administrative charge did not fall within the scope of the charge
Woodman v. Runyon
132 F.3d 1330 (10th Cir. 1997) Cited 231 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff demonstrated factual dispute by providing evidence that employer had granted another employee the requested accommodation in a similar situation
Johnson v. U.S. Postal Service
861 F.2d 1475 (10th Cir. 1989) Cited 122 times
Holding that the U.S. Marshal could not be held accountable for plaintiff's failure to serve where plaintiff's complaint named the wrong defendant
Davis v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
204 F.3d 723 (7th Cir. 2000) Cited 87 times
Holding that § 1981 did not apply to defendants — federal employees acting under color of federal law — because "by its language § 1981 does not apply to actions taken under color of federal law"
McDonald-Cuba v. Santa Fe Protective Servs., Inc.
644 F.3d 1096 (10th Cir. 2011) Cited 48 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that exhaustion requirement applies to alleged retaliation occurring after the commencement of judicial proceedings
Turner v. Shinseki
824 F. Supp. 2d 99 (D.D.C. 2011) Cited 37 times
Holding that verbal and written criticisms are not adverse employment actions "unless they are tied to the employee's bonus, or result in some other material employment action"
Strong-Fisher v. Lahood
611 F. Supp. 2d 49 (D.D.C. 2009) Cited 16 times
Concluding that § 1981 does not apply to claims against the United States
Johnson v. Orr
747 F.2d 1352 (10th Cir. 1984) Cited 42 times
Holding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies was a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to suit
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 354,229 times 943 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 52,072 times 130 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law
42 U.S.C. § 1981 Cited 38,401 times 254 Legal Analyses
Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race
Section 1614.105 - Pre-complaint processing
29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 Cited 2,657 times 13 Legal Analyses
Requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally
Section 1614.106 - Individual complaints
29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 Cited 653 times 2 Legal Analyses
Requiring administrative complaints to be filed with the complainant's agency

Long v. Mcdonald

16 Cited authorities

Holding that the United States does not have a specific fiduciary obligation to manage timber resources on allotted lands, held in trust for Indian-allotees

Holding that federal employee who missed deadline for filing Title VII claim could not bring suit based on alleged discriminatory conduct under Declaratory Judgment Act

Holding adverse employment actions occurring after plaintiff filed his administrative charge did not fall within the scope of the charge

Holding that plaintiff demonstrated factual dispute by providing evidence that employer had granted another employee the requested accommodation in a similar situation

Holding that the U.S. Marshal could not be held accountable for plaintiff's failure to serve where plaintiff's complaint named the wrong defendant

Holding that § 1981 did not apply to defendants — federal employees acting under color of federal law — because "by its language § 1981 does not apply to actions taken under color of federal law"

Holding that exhaustion requirement applies to alleged retaliation occurring after the commencement of judicial proceedings

Holding that verbal and written criticisms are not adverse employment actions "unless they are tied to the employee's bonus, or result in some other material employment action"

Concluding that § 1981 does not apply to claims against the United States

Holding that failure to exhaust administrative remedies was a "jurisdictional prerequisite" to suit

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

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

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

Requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally

Requiring administrative complaints to be filed with the complainant's agency