David J. Baker, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 243,094 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 222,209 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. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

    490 U.S. 228 (1989)   Cited 4,663 times   163 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"
  4. Smith v. City of Salem

    378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004)   Cited 713 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Title VII prohibits sex stereotyping
  5. Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc.

    256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001)   Cited 575 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding employer liable where its "solution" failed "to deter future harassment"
  6. Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

    194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999)   Cited 543 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that when an employee with a disability is injured by his employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, no additional showing of animus against persons with disabilities is required for ADA liability
  7. Prowel v. Wise Bus. Forms, Inc.

    579 F.3d 285 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 170 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Title VII protects a gay man for deviating from gender stereotypes but not for his sexual orientation
  8. 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"