§

Larry L. Martinez, Complainant, v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Service), Agency.

0120112293 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 12, 2012)
Larry L. Martinez, Complainant, v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (Indian Health Service), Agency.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,601 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

  2. Faragher v. Boca Raton

    524 U.S. 775 (1998)   Cited 9,458 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

  3. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth

    524 U.S. 742 (1998)   Cited 7,216 times   93 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"

  4. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden

    532 U.S. 268 (2001)   Cited 5,516 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"

  5. Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson

    477 U.S. 57 (1986)   Cited 6,582 times   18 Legal Analyses
    Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive

  6. Henson v. City of Dundee

    682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 979 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment