[Redacted], Catheryn P., 1 Complainant, v. Antony Blinken, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.

16 Cited authorities

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White
548 U.S. 53 (2006) Cited 11,594 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,125 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 12,609 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Faragher v. Boca Raton
524 U.S. 775 (1998) Cited 9,462 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,376 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,172 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson
477 U.S. 57 (1986) Cited 6,583 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
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,176 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context
Morgan v. Hilti, Inc.
108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,168 times
Holding that the plaintiff failed to create an inference of pretext when the disciplinary actions "simply completed the disciplinary process already set in motion" before the plaintiff had engaged in protected speech
Zabkowicz v. West Bend Co.
589 F. Supp. 780 (E.D. Wis. 1984) Cited 26 times
Considering whether it "was within the defendants' capability to halt the harassment campaign"
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 52,377 times 130 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose
29 U.S.C. § 621 Cited 17,673 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110 Cited 229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 140 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 83 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1614.403 - How to appeal
29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 Cited 34 times
Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC

[Redacted], Catheryn P., 1 Complainant, v. Antony Blinken, Secretary, Department of State, Agency.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"

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, 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

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive

Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context

Holding that the plaintiff failed to create an inference of pretext when the disciplinary actions "simply completed the disciplinary process already set in motion" before the plaintiff had engaged in protected speech

Considering whether it "was within the defendants' capability to halt the harassment campaign"

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

Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"

Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC