Lavern B., Complainant v. Julian Castro, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,675 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,626 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc.
679 F.3d 475 (6th Cir. 2012) Cited 73 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding it was not an adverse employment action where "the only change is that the schedule has been shifted one hour later"
Salmon v. Dade County School Bd.
4 F. Supp. 2d 1157 (S.D. Fla. 1998) Cited 34 times
Holding that regular and punctual attendance is an essential requirement for the sole guidance counselor in an elementary school with 1,200 students
Robinson v. Bodman
333 F. App'x 205 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 6 times
Finding employer is not required to accommodate disabled employee's inability to drive to work or to use public transportation because an "employer is not required to eliminate barriers outside the workplace that make it more difficult for [an] employee to get to and from work"
Bull v. Coyner
No. 98 C 7583 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 17, 2000)
No. 98 C 7583 February 17, 2000 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DAVID H. COAR, United States District Judge. In his Amended Complaint, Trevor Bull ("Bull") alleges that he was retaliated against for exercising his First Amendment rights (Count I); that he was subject to retaliatory discharge under Illinois law (Count II); that his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") were violated (Count III); that he was retaliated against in violation of the ADA (Count V); and that he was subject
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,027 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"

Lavern B., Complainant v. Julian Castro, Secretary, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Pullman-Standard v. Swint

Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

Regan v. Faurecia Auto. Seating, Inc.

Holding it was not an adverse employment action where "the only change is that the schedule has been shifted one hour later"

Salmon v. Dade County School Bd.

Holding that regular and punctual attendance is an essential requirement for the sole guidance counselor in an elementary school with 1,200 students

Robinson v. Bodman

Finding employer is not required to accommodate disabled employee's inability to drive to work or to use public transportation because an "employer is not required to eliminate barriers outside the workplace that make it more difficult for [an] employee to get to and from work"

Bull v. Coyner

Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

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