§

Lorna G. Bibbie, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

0120103185 (E.E.O.C. Jan. 21, 2011)
Lorna G. Bibbie, Complainant, v. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

  1. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,638 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

  2. Faragher v. Boca Raton

    524 U.S. 775 (1998)   Cited 9,478 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

  3. Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth

    524 U.S. 742 (1998)   Cited 7,229 times   93 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"

  4. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden

    532 U.S. 268 (2001)   Cited 5,529 times   12 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"

  5. Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson

    477 U.S. 57 (1986)   Cited 6,588 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

  6. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,025 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"