Lusardi v. Dep't of the Army

18 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,820 times 96 Legal Analyses
Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,522 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,233 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
Vance v. Ball State Univ
570 U.S. 421 (2013) Cited 1,355 times 45 Legal Analyses
Holding "that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim," such as hiring and firing
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston
469 U.S. 111 (1985) Cited 1,867 times
Holding McDonnell Douglas is inapplicable when direct evidence is presented
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co.
415 U.S. 36 (1974) Cited 2,860 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA
Glenn v. Brumby
663 F.3d 1312 (11th Cir. 2011) Cited 121 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity"
Etsitty v. Utah Transit
502 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2007) Cited 127 times 6 Legal Analyses
Finding that Title VII protections do not extend to harassment due to a person's sexuality
Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.
442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971) Cited 196 times
Holding that customer preference for female flight attendants does not constitute a "bona fide occupational qualification" under Title VII
Wilson v. Tulsa Junior College
164 F.3d 534 (10th Cir. 1998) Cited 65 times
Finding a policy deficient in part because employees were directed to make complaints to an official who was "located in a separate facility" and inaccessible during some work hours
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 4,994 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Lusardi v. Dep't of the Army

18 Cited authorities

Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

Holding "that an employer may be vicariously liable for an employee's unlawful harassment only when the employer has empowered that employee to take tangible employment actions against the victim," such as hiring and firing

Holding McDonnell Douglas is inapplicable when direct evidence is presented

Holding that workers may bring Title VII discrimination claims in federal court notwithstanding an arbitration provision in a CBA

Holding that "a government agent violates the Equal Protection Clause's prohibition of sex-based discrimination when he or she fires a transgender or transsexual employee because of his or her gender non-conformity"

Finding that Title VII protections do not extend to harassment due to a person's sexuality

Holding that customer preference for female flight attendants does not constitute a "bona fide occupational qualification" under Title VII

Finding a policy deficient in part because employees were directed to make complaints to an official who was "located in a separate facility" and inaccessible during some work hours

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"