Employment Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

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

• Conerly v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  623 F.2d 117· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-14 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to establish fraudulent concealment, and therefore the statute of limitations was not tolled, barring his claim.
• Int'l Woodworkers OF Am., AFL-CIO v. Chesapeake BAY Plywood Corp.
  659 F.2d 1259· 4th Cir.· 1981-09-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the union had standing to sue on behalf of its members, that class certification should not have been denied without an evidentiary hearing, and that summary judgment was inappropriate on the individual claims.
• Daniels v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Ravenna City Sch. Dist.
  805 F.2d 203· 6th Cir.· 1986-11-17 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court did not err in finding that plaintiffs failed to establish their claim of racial discrimination under the disparate treatment theory and did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider the disparate impact theory.
• Jordan v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  669 F.2d 1311· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a class representative who has voluntarily settled their individual claims may still be able to represent the class if they can provide vigorous advocacy, despite lacking a personal stake.
• Bullard v. OMI Ga., Inc.
  640 F.2d 632· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 20×
  Summary judgment was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the discrimination alleged was based on race, which is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, or solely on national origin, which is not.
• Walker v. World Tire Corp., Inc.
  563 F.2d 918· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the district court erred in denying class certification sua sponte without notice, the plaintiff was ultimately not a suitable class representative because he was not a victim of the alleged discrimination.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. N. Hills Passavant Hosp.
  544 F.2d 664· 3d Cir.· 1976-11-04 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the EEOC retained statutory authority to file an independent civil action even after a private party filed a similar suit, and that the doctrine of laches did not bar the EEOC's action.
• Harris v. Amoco Prod. Co.
  768 F.2d 669· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-16 ·cited 19×
• Foster v. Gueory
  655 F.2d 1319· D.C. Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 19×
  Individuals alleging discrimination similar to original plaintiffs can intervene in a Title VII and § 1981 suit, even if they have not filed their own EEOC charges, provided their claims are substantially similar and their interests may not be adequately represented by existing p
• Spiess v. C. Itoh & Co. (America), Inc.
  643 F.2d 353· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 19×
  The dissenting judge would hold that C. Itoh-America, being incorporated in the United States, is a company of the United States, not Japan, and therefore not exempt from Title VII under Article VIII(1) of the FCN Treaty.
• Leonard v. City OF Frankfort Elec. & Water Plant Bd.
  752 F.2d 189· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the § 1981 claims and the discriminatory discharge claim, and that the back-pay award for the Title VII demotion claim was not an abuse of discretion.
• Magdalena Garcia v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Med. Ctr.
  660 F.2d 1217· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-30 ·cited 18×
• Trujillo v. Gen. Elec. Co.
  621 F.2d 1084· 10th Cir.· 1980-05-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the EEOC's reconsideration of its 'no cause' determination and subsequent issuance of a second right-to-sue notice was valid, allowing the plaintiff's Title VII claim to proceed. The court also affirmed the trial court's finding that the plaintiff's terminatio
• Green v. Forney Eng'g Co.
  589 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1979-02-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that dismissal for lack of prosecution was an abuse of discretion when the plaintiff's counsel's absence was due to medical reasons and not contumacious conduct.
• Brewer v. Republic Steel Corp.
  513 F.2d 1222· 6th Cir.· 1975-04-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission is not entitled to intervene as a matter of right in a private employment discrimination suit brought under federal law, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying permissive intervention.
• Hopper v. Euclid Manor Nursing Home, Inc.
  867 F.2d 291· 6th Cir.· 1989-02-02 ·cited 16×
  The district court abused its discretion by modifying a judgment under Rule 60(b)(6) solely to avoid the mandatory application of Rule 68 costs.
• Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.
  753 F.2d 1269· 4th Cir.· 1985-02-06 ·cited 16×
  A Title VII plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages includes reasonably maintaining subsequent employment; discharge for misconduct in interim employment can forfeit back pay. A student who maintains full-time employment while attending college may still be entitled to back pay.
• Smith v. Honeywell, Inc.
  735 F.2d 1067· 8th Cir.· 1984-06-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motions for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, as the jury instructions and factual findings were proper and supported by evidence.
• Solomon Cates v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  561 F.2d 1064· 2d Cir.· 1977-08-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that claims based on a seniority system perpetuating past discrimination are time-barred if the underlying discriminatory act was not timely challenged. The Supreme Court's ruling in Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. regarding tolling of § 1981 claims applies
• Green v. USX Corp.
  843 F.2d 1511· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying class front pay, and should have awarded mitigated wages for two years.
• Legrand v. Trs. OF Univ. OF Ark. AT Pine Bluff
  821 F.2d 478· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-16 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to recognize a prima facie case of racial discrimination and that the defendant's stated reasons for termination were pretextual.
• Strong v. Mercantile Tr. Co., N.A.
  816 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-17 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the exclusion of testimony regarding discussions at an EEOC factfinding conference was not reversible error, either because the offer of proof was insufficient or because the error was harmless.
• Williams v. DeKALB Cnty.
  577 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1978-07-27 ·cited 13×
  The court should instruct the district court to apply the teachings of Washington v. Davis in assessing whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of racial discrimination.
• Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Ctr., Inc.
  709 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the union engaged in discrimination, the district court's remedies for back pay, front pay, and retroactive seniority were excessive and did not accurately recreate pre-discrimination conditions, requiring modification.
• Robbins v. White-Wilson Med. Clinic, Inc.
  642 F.2d 153· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant's subjective hiring process and the interviewer's racially tinged remarks created a pretext for discrimination, despite the defendant articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.
• Harper v. Gen. Grocers Co.
  590 F.2d 713· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while retroactive seniority is appropriate relief for the unlawful discharge, immediate appointment to a permanent position was not warranted, and back pay was not awarded due to lack of evidence.
• Trujillo v. Cnty. OF Santa Clara
  775 F.2d 1359· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 11×
  Federal courts must give preclusive effect to state court judgments under 28 U.S.C. § 1738, even in Title VII actions, if state law would give preclusive effect, regardless of which party initiated the state court proceedings.
• English v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co.
  465 F.2d 43· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the district court was justified in finding that white employees should be joined under Rule 19(a), its remedy of staying the action was improper; the court should have ordered joinder.
• Butts v. The City OF NEW York Dep't OF Hous. Pres. & Dev.
  990 F.2d 1397· 2d Cir.· 1993-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 does not apply retroactively to Plaintiff's § 1981 claims, but reversed dismissal of timely § 1981 promotion claims and two Title VII claims.
• Kimbrough v. Bowman Transp., Inc.
  920 F.2d 1578· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-15 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant waived the argument that the plaintiff's discharge was not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by failing to raise it in the trial court, and that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
• Nestor del Carmen v. Emerson Elec. Co.
  908 F.2d 158· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment because the record lacked sufficient evidence of dilatory conduct or contumacious behavior to warrant dismissal.
• Silvester Trevino, Jr. v. Holly Sugar Corp.
  811 F.2d 896· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court's findings of no discrimination and denial of class certification were not clearly erroneous, and affirmed the denial of attorneys' fees and award of costs to the defendants.
• Zbigniew W. Dybczak v. Tuskegee Inst.
  737 F.2d 1524· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to enjoin the Institute's alleged discriminatory hiring policy, nor in its jury instructions regarding the burden of proof in an employment discrimination case.
• Villareal v. Braswell Motor Freight Lines, Inc.
  545 F.2d 978· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Rule 60(b) motion, finding no abuse of discretion.
• Copley v. Bax Global, Inc.
  97 F. Supp. 2d 1164· S.D. Fla.· 2000-05-05 ·cited 8×
  The court denied the defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on liability, but granted a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff accepts a remittitur of compensatory and punitive damages.
• McKNIGHT v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  973 F.2d 1366· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-11 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying reinstatement or front pay, nor in refusing to reopen the record, and that the request for prejudgment interest was untimely.
• Espinueva v. Garrett
  895 F.2d 1164· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's suit for the account technician position was premature, not untimely, and that the substitution of the Secretary of the Navy related back to the original filing date, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
• Gibson v. Am. Broad. Cos., Inc.
  892 F.2d 1128· 2d Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that comparative proof is generally admissible in Title VII actions and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the pretextual nature of the employer's decisions for two plaintiffs, requiring a trial. The court affirmed the dismissal of the third pla
• Kelley v. TYK Refractories Co.
  860 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's findings regarding voluntary termination do not have collateral estoppel effect on a federal § 1981 discrimination claim because the issues and public policies are not identical.
• 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.
• Becton v. Detroit Terminal OF Consolidated Freightways
  687 F.2d 140· 6th Cir.· 1982-08-24 ·cited 8×
  A federal court can reconsider evidence rejected by an arbitrator in prior proceedings when trying a Title VII or section 1981 action, and the arbitration decision is not conclusively binding on the 'just cause' issue.
• Bernard v. Gulf OIL Corp.
  841 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-22 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court failed to address essential issues regarding classwide claims of discrimination in the seniority system, Stipulation 29, and craft tests, requiring remand for further findings. Other rulings were found to be without error.
• Meade v. Merchs. Fast Motorline, Inc.
  820 F.2d 1124· 10th Cir.· 1987-06-18 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff may pursue a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for private employment discrimination even if Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to the same conduct.
• Turner S. Royal v. Mo. Hwy. & Transp. Comm'n
  714 F.2d 867· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit redundant evidence or in its scrutiny of the employer's nondiscriminatory reasons for not promoting the plaintiff.
• Williams v. NEW Orleans S.S. Ass'n
  688 F.2d 412· 5th Cir.· 1982-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred as a matter of law by refusing to recognize a claim of discrimination in grain work as a legally cognizable, segmented claim, and that the evidence permitted only one resolution of the factual issue of discrimination.
• Mzell Williams v. United States Dist. Court
  658 F.2d 430· 6th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's Local Rule 3.9.4 and the July 2 order restricting communications with class members were invalid because they exceeded the district court's rule-making authority and unduly frustrated the policies underlying Rule 23.
• Cowan v. The Prudential Ins. Co. OF Am.
  935 F.2d 522· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a reasonable attorney's fee under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, calculated via the lodestar method, should not be reduced solely for proportionality to a low damage award, and that the district court erred in reducing the fee based on such a proportionality requirement.
• Townsend v. Terminal Packaging Co. & Pat Ryan
  853 F.2d 623· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the motion for reconsideration as untimely, regardless of whether it was treated as a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion.
• Foulks v. Ohio Dep't OF Rehab. & Corr.
  713 F.2d 1229· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Adult Parole Authority (APA) cannot be sued for money damages due to the Eleventh Amendment, and attorney's fees could still be awarded against the APA for the conduct of its officials.
• Sammie Garner v. ST. Louis Sw. Ry. Co.
  676 F.2d 1223· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, holding that the railroad articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee's dismissal and that the employee failed to prove this reason was pretextual.