§

Sandy L. Habersham, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E. Region), Agency.

05980657 (E.E.O.C. Nov. 29, 2000)
Sandy L. Habersham, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (S.E. Region), Agency.

3 Cited authorities

  1. 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 "

  2. 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"

  3. Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc.

    431 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1970)   Cited 1,402 times
    Holding that "the crucial element of a charge of discrimination is the factual statement contained therein. Everything else entered on the form is, in essence, a mere amplification of the factual allegations."