Complainant, v. Mike Donley, Secretary, Department of the Air Force (National Guard Bureau), Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Feres v. United States
340 U.S. 135 (1950) Cited 1,463 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service"
Mier v. Owens
57 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 170 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "Title VII coverage . . . encompasses actions brought by Guard technicians except when the challenged conduct is integrally related to the military's unique structure"
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
McKnight v. Gen. Motors Corp.
973 F.2d 1366 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 120 times
Holding that the proper cutoff time for a damage assessment was the day when the sting of discriminatory conduct ended or should have ended
Carter v. Duncan-Huggins, Ltd.
727 F.2d 1225 (D.C. Cir. 1984) Cited 117 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
Brown v. U.S.
227 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2000) Cited 46 times
Holding that "claims arising purely from a [dual-status employee's] civilian position are provided for under Title VII; claims that originate from [a dual status employee's] military status, however, are not cognizable."
Jentoft v. U.S.
450 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 29 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the 1997 Amendments allowed a dual status National Guard technician to bring an Equal Pay Act claim against the military
Gorniak v. National R.R. Passenger Corp.
889 F.2d 481 (3d Cir. 1989) Cited 39 times
Holding that the plaintiff has burden of producing evidence permitting a rational reduction of future wage loss damages to present value
Wetherill v. Geren
616 F.3d 789 (8th Cir. 2010) Cited 11 times
No. 09-3334. Submitted: June 17, 2010. Filed: August 11, 2010. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Karen E. Schreier, J. Sarah E. Baron Houy, argued, Rapid City, SD, for appellant. Robert Bruce Anderson, argued, Pierre, SD, for Appellees Doohen, Johnson, and The SD Army National Guard. Daneta Wollmann, AUSA, argued, Rapid City, SD, for Appellees Geren and The Army National Guard. Before WOLLMAN, EBEL and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. The Honorable David M. Ebel
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,057 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"

Complainant, v. Mike Donley, Secretary, Department of the Air Force (National Guard Bureau), Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Holding that "the Government is not liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries to servicemen where the injuries arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to service"

Holding that "Title VII coverage . . . encompasses actions brought by Guard technicians except when the challenged conduct is integrally related to the military's unique structure"

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

Holding that the proper cutoff time for a damage assessment was the day when the sting of discriminatory conduct ended or should have ended

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

Holding that "claims arising purely from a [dual-status employee's] civilian position are provided for under Title VII; claims that originate from [a dual status employee's] military status, however, are not cognizable."

Holding that the 1997 Amendments allowed a dual status National Guard technician to bring an Equal Pay Act claim against the military

Holding that the plaintiff has burden of producing evidence permitting a rational reduction of future wage loss damages to present value

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