Holding that the Court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to enter "a ruling declaring that the defendant has violated the Internal Revenue Code in one or more respects"
Concluding that employer had interest "indistinguishable from those of any other employer" in communicating reasons for plaintiff's discharge, and that interest was "amply protected by the qualified 'common interest' privilege"
Holding that a Title VII claimant was allowed to challenge an agency's computation of a back-pay award when the EEOC failed to act on the claimant's petition for enforcement within 180 days
Finding plaintiff did not prove actual malice where "there was no evidence presented to establish any negative relationship between [plaintiff and defendants]."
Finding that a gender discrimination claim asserted in a proposed amended complaint related back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes because the facts that supported the claim were the same as those that supported a race discrimination claim set forth in the original complaint and the same as the facts alleged in the plaintiff's EEOC complaint
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 92,978 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint