42 U.S.C. § 2000E Et Seq.

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

• Stevens v. The Junior Coll. Dist. OF ST. Louis-St. Louis Cnty.
  548 F.2d 779· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove racial discrimination or retaliation, and the trial court's findings were not clearly erroneous.
• Thompson v. SUN OIL Co.
  523 F.2d 647· 8th Cir.· 1975-10-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court properly denied class certification and granted summary judgment for the employer, as the plaintiff failed to show discrimination or disqualification based on the employment test.
• Micolette M. Bruno v. City OF Crown Point
  950 F.2d 355· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-27 ·cited 8×
  Although an employer may ask applicants questions regarding family circumstances, if such questions are asked only of female applicants based on sex stereotypes, the plaintiff must prove the employer actually relied on gender in making the employment decision; here, Bruno failed
• Salinas v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  735 F.2d 1574· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 8×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) regarding specific factual findings and remanded for further proceedings.
• Myles S. Young v. Powell
  729 F.2d 563· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff who voluntarily stipulates to a dismissal of their case after settling all disputed issues, including attorney's fees, cannot later claim to be a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Kellin v. ACF Indus. & Bhd. of Ry. Carmen Local No. 365
  629 F.2d 532· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's finding that ACF discharged the appellant for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons was not clearly erroneous, but remanded the retaliation claim against ACF due to a factual error regarding the date of an EEOC charge.
• Sanford v. O'Neill
  616 F.2d 92· 3d Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because material factual disputes existed and the plaintiffs had demanded a jury trial for their constitutional claims.
• Mattye Faye Faulkner v. Fed'n of Preschool & Cmty. Educ. Ctrs., Inc.
  564 F.2d 327· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted because the alleged discriminatory act occurred before the effective date of the 1972 amendments to Title VII, rendering the Act inapplicable.
• United States v. Roadway Express, Inc.
  457 F.2d 854· 6th Cir.· 1972-04-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the consent order's provisions granting seniority to transferred city drivers were equitable and lawful, and thus the judgment of the District Court denying modification was affirmed.
• Pugh v. Heinrich
  695 F. Supp. 533· M.D. Fla.· 1988-09-12 ·cited 7×
  Summary judgment is appropriate where the plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or fails to show pretext after the employer provides a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action.
• Alston A. Emanuel and Leon Paige v. Marsh
  828 F.2d 438· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's finding of no discrimination was clearly erroneous.
• Lams v. Gen. Waterworks Corp.
  766 F.2d 386· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding no employment discrimination, as the evidence showed a pattern of racial segregation and a failure to consider black employees for promotions.
• Aquamina v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  644 F.2d 506· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate racial discrimination or a bad faith breach of the duty of fair representation, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Wood v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  637 F.2d 1188· 8th Cir.· 1981-01-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the employer did not discriminate based on sex, and a bona fide seniority system is a valid defense against pay disparity claims.
• United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. The Honorable Miles W. Lord
  585 F.2d 860· 8th Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that mandamus is not available to review the district court's discretionary orders regarding class certification or EEOC intervention, as these are not final decisions and do not constitute an abuse of judicial power.
• Jimerson v. Kisco Co., Inc.
  542 F.2d 1008· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination under Title VII because he did not show that blacks as a class were excluded from employment at a higher rate due to falsifying arrest records.
• Smith v. Off. OF Econ. Opportunity FOR the State OF Ark. & Robert L. Whitfield
  538 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the EEOC is a jurisdictional prerequisite and that the appellant's claim of a continuing violation was insufficient to overcome the untimeliness of his charge.
• Casey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  8 F. Supp. 2d 1330· N.D. Fla.· 1998-03-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Wal-Mart's knowledge of harassment, thus denying summary judgment on the hostile environment claim, but granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim for Plaintiff Denson and Casey.
• Brown v. Walt Disney World Co.
  805 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1992-11-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while race was a motivating factor in employment decisions, the employer would have made the same termination decision based on performance issues alone.
• Galbraith v. N. Telecom, Inc.
  944 F.2d 275· 6th Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the result, but one judge dissented, arguing the lower court erred in not finding unlawful discrimination based on pretext.
• Reed v. Shepard
  939 F.2d 484· 7th Cir.· 1991-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no due process violation and no actionable sexual discrimination or harassment under Title VII.
• English v. Whitfield
  858 F.2d 957· 4th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the employee's retaliatory discharge claim was untimely because the limitations period began when she received definite notice of the disciplinary decision, not when her employment ultimately ended. However, the court also held that a claim for retaliatory har
• Nannie Hancock v. Roscoe L. Egger
  848 F.2d 87· 6th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service is not the proper defendant in an employment discrimination action under Title VII, as the statute requires the head of the employing department, agency, or unit.
• Annalee NOE v. R.A. Ward
  754 F.2d 890· 10th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the 90-day period to file a civil action under Title VII begins when the aggrieved party receives the "Right to Sue" letter, not when their attorney receives it.
• Bird v. Summit Cnty.
  730 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a failure to completely expunge an arrest record, even if ordered by a state court, does not violate federal constitutional rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Dickey v. Greene
  710 F.2d 1003· 4th Cir.· 1983-05-31 ·cited 4×
  A Title VII plaintiff must file an EEOC charge against the party they intend to sue, and naming only the employer in the charge is insufficient to bring individual defendants before the court.
• Burnett v. Chickasaw Area Dev. Comm'n
  662 F.2d 1210· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove racial discrimination and that the district court's findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous.
• Taylor v. Mueller Co.
  660 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 4×
  A facially neutral, legitimate seniority system does not become unlawful under Title VII simply because it perpetuates pre-Act discrimination, provided it was not adopted with an intent to discriminate.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Carter Carburetor
  577 F.2d 43· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court exceeded its judicial power by issuing a discovery sanctions order that improperly limited the EEOC's evidence, and therefore issued a writ of mandamus to withdraw the order.
• Norman v. Missouri Pacific Railroad
  497 F.2d 594· 8th Cir.· 1974-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that retired train porters' claims for enhanced retirement benefits, based on hypothetical past qualification for brakeman positions, are indistinguishable from back pay claims and are therefore foreclosed by precedent in a similar case.
• Patmon v. VAN Dorn Co.
  498 F.2d 544· 6th Cir.· 1974-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding his qualifications for the promotion or the unions' fair representation.
• Gomes v. Avco Corp. & Local 1010, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., AFL-CIO
  964 F.2d 1330· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's disparate treatment and § 1981 claims were time-barred, but his disparate impact claim was not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies or the statute of limitations.
• Woodbury v. Sears
  901 F. Supp. 1560· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging racial discrimination under Title VII must present specific evidence of pretext or discriminatory intent to defeat a motion for summary judgment, and bare allegations are insufficient.
• Morris v. Rice
  985 F.2d 143· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-29 ·cited 2×
  A district court may reconsider factual findings made by the EEOC when conducting a de novo review of the remedy portion of an employment discrimination case, provided the reconsideration does not reopen the issue of liability.
• Arcangel Alvarado v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Montgomery Cmty. Coll.
  928 F.2d 118· 4th Cir.· 1991-03-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's finding of intentional discrimination by the College against Alvarado was not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the award of attorney's fees.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Gen. Tel. Co. OF Nw., Inc.
  885 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that admitting employer's equal employment opportunity evidence after denying discovery of self-critical materials was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial error. It also held that a defendant cannot rebut statistical evidence of discrimination by merely pointing
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. United Parcel Serv.
  860 F.2d 372· 10th Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The EEOC has standing to sue under Title VII to challenge an ongoing discriminatory policy, even if the original individual complainant has settled their claim.
• Sallee R. Bruhwiler v. Univ. OF Tenn. & Dr. D.T. Stafford
  859 F.2d 419· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's findings of discriminatory non-promotion and constructive discharge were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the judgment.
• Salazar v. Heckler
  787 F.2d 527· 10th Cir.· 1986-03-27 ·cited 2×
  Title VII's prohibition against employment discrimination does not apply to commissioned officers of the Public Health Service, as they are not considered federal employees under the civil service laws and thus § 717 does not waive sovereign immunity for claims brought by them.
• Nieves v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  598 F. Supp. 955· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination because the employer was unaware of his national origin, and even if a prima facie case were established, the employer's selection of other candidates was based on legitimate, no
• Augustus G. Lartius v. Iowa Dep't OF Transp.
  705 F.2d 1018· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the evidence supported the jury's determination of no unlawful discrimination and that the trial court's jury instructions were legally correct.
• Robino v. Norton
  682 F.2d 192· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous, affirming the judgment.
• Delois Martin v. The Ark. Arts Ctr.
  627 F.2d 876· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in finding that the employer articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employee's dismissal and that the employee failed to prove this reason was pretextual.
• Bryant v. W. Elec. Co., Inc.
  572 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1978-05-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a plaintiff's failure to file a timely charge against the correct employer with the EEOC is a bar to a Title VII lawsuit, even if the plaintiff was unaware of the error and blames the EEOC.
• Johnson v. Potter
  732 F. Supp. 2d 1264· M.D. Fla.· 2010-08-10 ·cited 1×
  The court held that a hostile workplace claim fails for lack of pervasive intimidation, but disparate treatment claims regarding discipline and extra hours survive summary judgment, with leave granted to amend the complaint to include omitted factual allegations.
• Loos v. Club Paris, LLC
  2010 WL 532502· M.D. Fla.· 2010-02-16 ·cited 1×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, entering judgment on claims of sex discrimination, negligent supervision/retention, and battery, while denying it for retaliation, and granted reconsideration to allow a jury trial on damage
• Mora v. Univ. of Miami
  15 F. Supp. 2d 1324· S.D. Fla.· 1998-07-14 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present direct evidence of discrimination and that the circumstantial evidence did not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge or retaliation.
• Robertson v. Home Depot (U.S.A.), Inc.
  976 F. Supp. 1467· S.D. Fla.· 1997-08-13 ·cited 1×
  Summary judgment is granted because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and did not present sufficient evidence of pretext for his termination or failure to promote claims.
• Candelore v. Clark Cnty. Sanitation Dist.
  975 F.2d 588· 9th Cir.· 1992-09-14 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the decision because the plaintiff failed to establish a factual predicate for her alleged discrimination claim.
• Williams v. Hous. Auth. of Sanford
  709 F. Supp. 1554· M.D. Fla.· 1988-06-28 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove sex discrimination, as the alleged direct evidence was either innocuous, inadmissible hearsay, or contradicted by the alleged discriminator's sworn testimony.