42 U.S.C. § 2000E Et Seq.

163 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
  416 F.2d 711· 7th Cir.· 1969-09-26 ·cited 236×
  The court held that requiring employees to elect between arbitration and a Title VII action was error, and that a 35-pound weight-lifting restriction was not a bona fide occupational qualification. It also held that Title VII actions are class actions for all relief, not just inj
• Jackson v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  678 F.2d 992· 11th Cir.· 1982-06-17 ·cited 206×
  The court held that the preconditions to filing a Title VII action, such as filing an EEOC complaint and receiving a right-to-sue letter, are not jurisdictional prerequisites and can be subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.
• Oubichon v. N. Am. Rockwell Corp.
  482 F.2d 569· 9th Cir.· 1973-07-10 ·cited 105×
  An employee's resort to union grievance procedures does not bar a subsequent Title VII action, and claims not initially presented to a state agency may be included in a federal complaint if reasonably related to the original charge.
• Rios v. Enter. Ass'n Steamfitters Local 638 OF U.A.
  501 F.2d 622· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 88×
  The court held that court-ordered racial quotas to eradicate past discrimination violate sections 703(j) and 703(c)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as the legislative history clearly shows Congress intended to prohibit racial quotas under any circumstances.
• Hutchings v. United States Indus., Inc.
  428 F.2d 303· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-19 ·cited 83×
  An employee's utilization of contractual grievance-arbitration procedures does not preclude them from pursuing a Title VII action in federal court, nor does it automatically toll the statute of limitations for filing EEOC charges.
• Schaeffer v. SAN Diego Yellow Cabs, Inc.
  462 F.2d 1002· 9th Cir.· 1972-06-20 ·cited 80×
  The court held that employers acting in good faith reliance on state laws are not deemed to have intentionally violated Title VII, and thus damages for lost wages are not authorized.
• Young v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Co.
  438 F.2d 757· 3d Cir.· 1971-02-11 ·cited 80×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 applies to private employment discrimination and that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not deprive district courts of jurisdiction over § 1981 actions.
• Allen v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 788
  554 F.2d 876· 8th Cir.· 1977-05-09 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the Union engaged in racial discrimination by denying seniority rights and charging initiation fees to former CSC employees, and that the statute of limitations did not bar claims for continuing discrimination. The court also affirmed the availability of punit
• Rogero v. B.M. Noone
  704 F.2d 518· 11th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 71×
  A suit under Title VII cannot be maintained against a county tax collector who individually employs fewer than fifteen people, even if the county employs more, unless the county is joined as a party.
• Nulf v. Int'l Paper Co.
  656 F.2d 553· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-05 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for her claims of discriminatory discharge, unequal pay, and denial of promotion, but that the award of attorney's fees to the defendant was improper.
• Wright v. Stone Container Corp.
  524 F.2d 1058· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-22 ·cited 61×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of class certification and individual relief, and its refusal to award attorneys' fees to the defendant.
• Yatvin v. Madison Metro. Sch. Dist.
  840 F.2d 412· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 57×
  The court held that retaliation for filing sex discrimination charges is not sex discrimination, nor does it automatically violate the First Amendment, and that a contingent expectation under an affirmative action plan does not constitute a constitutional property right.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. The Rath Packing Co.
  787 F.2d 318· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in denying retroactive competitive seniority and in defining the relevant labor pool for backpay calculations.
• Goodman v. City Prods. Corp.
  425 F.2d 702· 6th Cir.· 1970-05-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the 30-day period to file a lawsuit after receiving notice from the EEOC is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite and not subject to equitable extension by the courts.
• Inda v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  565 F.2d 554· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 51×
  The court held that while Inda's EEOC charge was timely filed under the 1972 amendments, Moritz's denial of re-employment constituted a separate violation allowing her charge to be considered timely. The order denying class action status was vacated for lack of specificity.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. White & SON Enters.
  881 F.2d 1006· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the defendant willfully discriminated based on sex and retaliated against employees for protesting unequal pay, but vacated the damages award for recalculation.
• Bugg v. Int'l Union OF Allied Indus. Workers OF Am.
  674 F.2d 595· 7th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that attorney's fees can be awarded to a prevailing defendant-appellee for appellate work if the plaintiff's appeal is frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Roman v. ESB
  550 F.2d 1343· 4th Cir.· 1976-12-28 ·cited 44×
  The court held that plaintiffs proved a prima facie case of racial discrimination in employment, shifting the burden to the employer to disprove it, and that the district court erred in restricting the class action.
• Bronze Shields, Inc. v. The NEW Jersey Dep't OF Civil Serv.
  667 F.2d 1074· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Title VII charges filed after the 180-day period following the promulgation of a discriminatory eligibility roster, but before the roster's use for hiring, were untimely. The court also held that claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 require proof of intentional discr
• Mack v. Cape Elizabeth Sch. Bd.
  553 F.2d 720· 1st Cir.· 1977-04-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that a probationary teacher's notice of intent to return did not create a property interest for procedural due process, but reversed summary judgment on the Title VII claim because the defendant's affidavits did not adequately address the specific reason for the pl
• Tuft v. McDONNELL Douglas Corp.
  517 F.2d 1301· 8th Cir.· 1975-05-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the first letter from the EEOC, stating only that conciliation had failed, did not trigger the 90-day statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit.
• Flowers v. Turbine Support Division
  507 F.2d 1242· 5th Cir.· 1975-02-12 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the denial of the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis was erroneous and that the subsequent dismissal for want of prosecution was an abuse of discretion.
• Talley v. United States Postal Serv.
  720 F.2d 505· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-03 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove her claims of racial and sexual discrimination under disparate impact or disparate treatment theories, and that her retaliatory discharge claim lacked merit.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Local 638 ... Local 28 OF the Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n & Local 28 Joint Apprenticeship Comm.
  532 F.2d 821· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 40×
  The court concurred in the result, but the concurring opinion questioned the legality of racial quotas under Title VII.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gaddis
  733 F.2d 1373· 10th Cir.· 1984-05-02 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the appeal was timely filed and that the district court's findings of discrimination and award of damages were supported by the record and applicable law.
• Collins v. United AIR Lines, Inc.
  514 F.2d 594· 9th Cir.· 1975-04-16 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by her failure to file a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC within the statutory 90-day period.
• Holsey v. Armour & Co.
  743 F.2d 199· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-20 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed most of the district court's findings of discrimination and retaliation but vacated class certification for certain groups and remanded the attorneys' fees award.
• LaPriel B. James v. Newspaper Agency Corp.
  591 F.2d 579· 10th Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 36×
  The dissenting judge believes the trial court erred by failing to properly apply the McDonnell Douglas test for employment discrimination and by improperly limiting discovery and excluding relevant evidence.
• Gillin v. Fed. Paper Bd. Co., Inc.
  479 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while the employer did not err in hiring a more qualified male applicant, it did err by refusing to consider the female applicant for the promotion solely because of her sex.
• Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n
  551 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-01 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the plaintiff's sex discrimination claim regarding promotion was timely filed due to a continuing violation, but affirmed the trial court's finding that no discrimination occurred and that a hearsay statement was inadmissible.
• Jacobs v. The Martin Sweets Co., Inc.
  550 F.2d 364· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the termination and/or constructive termination of an employee due to unwed pregnancy constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court also affirmed the denial of class action status for claims related to the company's pregnancy/
• Kober v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  480 F.2d 240· 3d Cir.· 1973-05-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while reliance on a conflicting state statute constitutes an intentional violation of Title VII, the award of back pay and injunctive relief remains within the district court's discretion, and in this case, there was no abuse of discretion in denying such reli
• Darnell v. City OF Jasper
  730 F.2d 653· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to order the City to administer a civil service exam and in refusing to award back pay based on a quarterly earnings formula.
• In re Ruben v. Warren City Schs.
  825 F.2d 977· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that sanctions against the plaintiff and her attorney were improper because the plaintiff's action was not frivolous or brought in bad faith, and the attorney's conduct did not unreasonably multiply proceedings. The court also reversed the taxation of costs against
• Donald and Ronald Hill v. The Duriron Co., Inc.
  656 F.2d 1208· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court erred by failing to conduct a de novo review of the magistrate's findings and recommendations, particularly when objections were raised and a transcript was necessary for proper review.
• Bonilla v. Oakland Scavenger Co.
  697 F.2d 1297· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the discrimination claims against the employer and that the shareholder preference plan, as it affects employment terms and conditions, is subject to Title VII. The court also found that the union may be liable for breach
• Scarlett v. Thomas and William D. Rood
  676 F.2d 1043· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the 180-day filing period for Title VII claims is a statute of limitations, not jurisdictional, and that a continuing violation theory requires actionable conduct within the limitations period, not just the continuing impact of past discrimination. The court a
• Mrs. Shirley Baker (Truvillion) v. King's Daughters Hosp.
  614 F.2d 520· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prior dismissal of an EEOC suit for procedural defects did not bar the plaintiff's subsequent Title VII action, nor did the EEOC's filing of that suit preclude it from issuing a right-to-sue letter. The court also held that the plaintiff's § 1981 claim was
• Archie v. Chicago Truck Drivers
  585 F.2d 210· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 30×
  The court should strictly adhere to the ninety-day jurisdictional prerequisite for filing Title VII suits, as it is a jurisdictional matter not subject to flexible interpretation.
• Hofer v. Campbell
  581 F.2d 975· D.C. Cir.· 1978-07-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that an employee's acceptance of an agency decision and subsequent request to reopen does not extend the 30-day jurisdictional period for filing a civil action after the final administrative decision.
• Beraldine L. Acha and Arlene M. Egan v. Beame
  531 F.2d 648· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a seniority system, while generally valid, cannot be used to perpetuate past discrimination, and relief is available to those who prove they were improperly denied rightful placement in the seniority hierarchy due to discrimination.
• Gifford v. The Atchison
  685 F.2d 1149· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that laches is an equitable defense that requires factual findings of inexcusable delay and prejudice, and cannot be decided as a matter of law on an inadequate record, particularly concerning backpay claims.
• Hinton v. CPC Int'l, Inc.
  520 F.2d 1312· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-17 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the 90-day period for filing a Title VII action after receiving an EEOC right-to-sue notice is a jurisdictional prerequisite, and failure to comply deprives the federal court of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Humphrey v. Sw. Portland Cement Co.
  488 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1974-01-21 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court's findings of racial discrimination were clearly erroneous due to a lack of evidentiary support.
• Nettie Mae Logan v. The Gen. Fireproofing Co.
  521 F.2d 881· 4th Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding sex discrimination.
• Artell M. Henry (81-1767) v. City OF Detroit Manpower Dep't
  763 F.2d 757· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 26×
  Orders denying motions for appointment of counsel in Title VII and § 1983 actions are not immediately appealable "final decisions" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Brown v. Parker-Hannifin Corp.
  746 F.2d 1407· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 26×
  Summary judgment was improper because the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to establish a triable prima facie case of discrimination and to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding pretext for her discharge.
• Ekanem v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  589 F.2d 316· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-21 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury.
• Jones v. Madison Serv. Corp. & Am. Transit Corp.
  744 F.2d 1309· 7th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 25×
  The 90-day period for filing a Title VII suit begins to run when the EEOC right-to-sue notice is actually received by the claimant or their attorney, provided certain conditions regarding representation are met.
• Bunch v. Nat Bullard
  795 F.2d 384· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred by improperly placing the burden on plaintiffs to prove the job-relatedness of discriminatory employment tests, and that the city failed to meet its burden of proving the tests' validity.