Mark H.,1 Complainant, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,200 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,674 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 1,625 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"
Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose
29 U.S.C. § 621 Cited 17,692 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
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"
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"
Section 1614.403 - How to appeal
29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 Cited 34 times
Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC

Mark H.,1 Complainant, v. William P. Barr, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Federal Bureau of Prisons), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

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"

Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose

Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"

Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Section 1614.403 - How to appeal

Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC