Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Eastern Area), Agency.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 241,326 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,711 times   41 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
  3. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,213 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
  4. Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp.

    846 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1988)   Cited 413 times
    Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer
  5. Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Hlth

    198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 280 times
    Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease
  6. Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's diabetes and related medical conditions, which affected “many of the organ systems in his body,” were physical impairments under the ADA
  7. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology

    545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)   Cited 249 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"
  8. Swanks v. Washington Met. Area Transit

    179 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 50 times
    Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))
  9. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation, Etc.

    425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement
  10. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 52,487 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  11. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,646 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
  12. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,303 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
  13. 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"
  14. Section 1614.109 - Hearings

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.109   Cited 133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing administrative hearings
  15. 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"