§

Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest Areas), Agency.

01973250 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 11, 1999)
Appellant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southeast/Southwest Areas), Agency.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Williamson v. Tucker

    454 U.S. 897 (1981)   Cited 670 times
    Determining questions under 12(b) rather than 12(b) grants additional protection to plaintiff

  2. Wulf v. City of Wichita

    883 F.2d 842 (10th Cir. 1989)   Cited 271 times
    Holding that allegations in letter to Attorney General that included a report of sexual harassment of an officer by a supervisor involved matters of public concern

  3. Sanchez v. Puerto Rico Oil Co.

    37 F.3d 712 (1st Cir. 1994)   Cited 227 times
    Holding that a remitted award may be overturned if "the reduced figure remains so extravagant as to shock the appellate conscience."

  4. Cygnar v. City of Chicago

    865 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 169 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that evidence that patronage targets' names were known by defendant to be on Democratic Party contributors' list sufficient to support finding that defendant knew, despite his denial, of their political affiliations

  5. U.S. v. Balistrieri

    981 F.2d 916 (7th Cir. 1992)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that a defendant need not actually know that he is violating the Fair Housing Act in order to be found to have discriminated

  6. Carter v. Duncan-Huggins, Ltd.

    727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 116 times
    Holding that the standards used to determine what constitutes a hostile work environment is the same under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981

  7. Busche v. Burkee

    649 F.2d 509 (7th Cir. 1981)   Cited 99 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Discussing Little

  8. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ALC Security Investigations, Ltd.

    823 F. Supp. 571 (N.D. Ill. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    Finding injunctive relief proper because the jury concluded there was a violation of the law and it was clear from the testimony at trial that the defendant still believed that its conduct was proper