Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to
consider using additional terms to narrow it.
 |
OPINION/ORDER
It is an authority constrained by no less a power than that of the People themselves. The constitution is written.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
He was denied entry. The Kamehameha Schools were created through a charitable testamentary trust. Plaintiff argues that he was denied admission because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Factual Background Historical Context2 The islands of Hawaii are geographically isolated in the South Pacific Ocean and were originally settled sometime between 1 and 750 A.D. The immediate result of that first encounter was that Native Hawaiians were introduced to Western goods and Western diseases. The first treaty was signed in 1826. Additional treaties were signed in 1849. Was commercially desirable. Western economic domination of the Hawaiian Islands was followed by an interest in establishing political control. Was overthrown by a small group of nonHawaiians. Who were assisted in their efforts by the United States Minister. Laws were then enacted suppressing the Hawaiian culture and language and allowing for the displacement of Native Hawaiians from their lands. The Hawaiian language was banned as a medium of instruction in schools.
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Holding that Humphries could not establish his prima facie burden of showing that a similarly situated individual in a non protected class was treated more favorably. 2 No. 05 4047 We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment as to Humphries's retaliation claim because Humphries made a sufficient showing under the indirect method to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under section 1981. I. BACKGROUND The following facts are recounted in the light most favorable to Humphries. Was an associate manager at a Cracker Barrel restaurant in Bradley. Associate managers at Cracker Barrel are supervised by a general manager. Who in turn is supervised by a district manager. His performance during his first two and a half years (roughly February 1999 through midJuly 2001) was generally excellent. Such as stating that all African Americans are
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Donald Scott Lagatree was refused employment as a legal secretary by Luce. Both cases are closely on point.'
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Who is Hispanic. Griffith complains that he was suspended and then denied retraining. As some district courts have concluded. The third step in the McDonnell Douglas analysis must be modified
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The plaintiffs filed this class action on behalf of all Florida citizens who have been convicted of a felony and have completed all terms of their incarceration. Parole but who are barred from voting under the state's felon disenfranchisement law.2 The defendants are members of Florida's Clemency Board.3 II. A felon who has completed his sentence may apply for clemency to have his civil rights restored. The requirement of a hearing is insufficient to support the plaintiffs' claim. We say nothing about whether conditioning an application for clemency on paying restitution would be an invalid poll tax. 2 Approximately seventy percent of the plaintiffs class is white. The Clemency Board is made up of the Governor of Florida and members of the Cabinet. Summary judgment is appropriate when
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff Wanda Birch was hired as a Probate Court magistrate after interviewing with Probate Court Administrator/Magistrate John Polito. Birch was hired as a Release of Assets magistrate and continues to serve in that capacity. The salary survey showed that the average salary of female Probate Court magistrates was lower than the average salary of male Probate Court magistrates. That the highest paid female magistrate was earning less than the lowest paid male magistrate. Birch's salary was revealed to be the lowest of any of the magistrates in any of the divisions of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Birch then asked Judge Donnelly why she was the lowest paid Magistrate at the court and whether he had a concern about her work.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Eight Florida citizens1 (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Save Our Valley argues that the project will have the effect of discriminating against Rainier Valley residents based on race in violation of a Department of Transportation regulation. The primary question before us is whether that Department of Transportation regulation creates an individual federal right that can be enforced under the Civil Rights Act. I The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was on brief for appellee.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
ORDER Rio Tinto's petition for rehearing and for rehearing en banc is granted in part. Are hereby withdrawn. A superseding opinion and dissent will be filed concurrently with this order. Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Perry plant is divided into three sections: the kill floor. Where hogs are killed. The sections are organized into numerous production lines. Each of which is responsible for a different facet of hog processing. The lines are composed of line workers. A utility position is usually the first step towards promotion to such management support jobs as trainer. The lines are managed by front line supervisors and general supervisors. Supervisors are managed by plant superintendents. Who are responsible for all production functions. Who is the highest level manager in the plant. The Perry plant also employs a personnel director who is responsible for addressing employee grievances. The authority to terminate employees is vested in the plant manager and the personnel director. She was dating James Madison. An African American man who was also employed at the Perry plant. The couple married in 1996 and have two children. Was a reliable worker. 3 Madison presented a great deal of evidence at trial to show that she was subjected to a continuing pattern of racial and sexual harassment during her employment and that supervisors and managers failed to take action in response to her complaints.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiffs are current or former residents of Bougainville. Who allege that they or their family members were the victims of numerous violations of international law as a result of defendant mining corporation Rio Tinto. Which provides that
|
|
TYLER V. CITY OF MANHATTAN
The district court ruled that compensatory damages for mental and emotional injury were not available under the ADA absent intentional discrimination. The district court further concluded that Tyler had not claimed he was subjected to intentional discrimination. No cause exists for this court to resolve an issue raised not by Tyler but by the United States as amicus: whether compensatory damages are recoverable for unintentional violations of the ADA. Is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.(2) He is partially paralyzed and essentially unable to read. Sitting by designation. (1) The City suggests that the district court's judgment was not a final. Appealable judgment because it ordered only injunctive relief and the district court necessarily retains jurisdiction over the parties until they have complied with the terms of the injunction. An order or judgment is final for purposes of appeal if it resolves all substantive issues on the merits and effectively ends the litigation. There was thus a final. Tyler was free to appeal from anything in that judgment or the court's prior.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. We granted en banc review on the question whether the standard of evidence for punitive dam ages under Title VII is. We further hold that no evidence of such behavior was shown at trial in this case. Thus affirm the district court on the issue of punitive damages. * * * ADA is a Chicago based professional organization with an office in Washington. Both Kolstad and Spangler are lawyers. (There is no evidence that the job has not in fact included those elements.). In October 1992 Wheat approved a performance evaluation of Spangler in which Spangler stated that one of his objectives for 1993 was to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
OPINION PER CURIAM: This case was argued before the en banc Court on February 27. (2) holding that the establishment of a magnet schools program was an ultra vires. King and Gregory in the affirmative) attorneys' fees for work done on the unitary status issue are denied. Nominal damages and attorneys' fees in that regard are denied. The injunction is vacated. The imposition of sanctions is affirmed. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed on the finding of unitary status and the imposition of sanctions. The judgment of the district court vacating and dissolving all prior injunctive orders and decrees is affirmed. The Board is to operate the school system without the strictures of these decrees no later than the 2002 2003 school year. Circuit Judge: This case is hopefully the final chapter in the saga of federal court control over the Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools (
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
NIPPER V. SMITH
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="795"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec94/92-2588.opa.html">NIPPER V. SMITH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Nipper v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="793"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A294DE38BC83F75B88257051005488B8/$file/0415044.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Kamehameha Schools have operated as the charitable legacy of Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop. The Kamehameha Schools give preference to students who are of native Hawaiian ancestry. Attendance at the Kamehameha Schools is effectively limited to those descended from the Hawaiian race. The issue considered here is a significant one in our statutory civil rights law: May a private. Purposefully exclude a student qualified for admission solely because he is not of pure or part aboriginal blood? The parties agree that this is a case of first impression in our circuit. He argues that he was denied entry to the Kamehameha Schools because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. I The facts are not in dispute. Nonsectarian schools which are dispersed among the Hawaiian Islands. KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS 8927 The school system was founded in 1887 under a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-2869.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a police officer for the Village of Mount Prospect. Sergeant George Steiner was a member of the Board. Garcia's deposition was used by Martinez in responding to the Village's ultimately unsuccessful motion for summary judgment.2 1 The Board is comprised of five (5) people: two Village Board of Trustees presidential appointees. Although Garcia was disclosed as a witness in the Final Pretrial Order. Nothing in the record indicates that Garcia himself or his deposition were actually used by Martinez at trial. Was so disturbed by evidence of the Village Police Department's racial profiling policies presented during the trial. After the verdict was entered. The Board selected three physicians to examine Garcia to determine if he was disabled. 40 Ill. While clear that Garcia was disabled. The hearing was continued in order to later consider whether the duty related benefits were warranted. Hearings were held on May 12. Where additional evidence was submitted. At no time during any of the three hearings were any claims of employment discrimination made to the Board.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="791"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="789"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="789"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/952012P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nash Finch argues the district court erred in holding (1) Kim's claim that he was unlawfully denied a promotion from leadman to foreman in November 1990 was actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. (2) there was sufficient evidence of intentional discrimination. (3) there was sufficient evidence of retaliation. (4) there was sufficient evidence of malice or reckless indifference to support punitive damages. (5) the jury verdict awarding damages for lost wages and compensatory damages was supported by sufficient evidence or. Was not excessive. BACKGROUND FACTS Nash Finch is a wholesale and retail food distributor. During the period of time at issue Bill Mund was the warehouse superintendent. Transportation are each supervised by a salaried
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="786"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0102p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Part II (Adverse Employment Action) of the majority opinion was joined by BOGGS. Part IV (Punitive Damages) was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by MARTIN. In which he was joined by BOGGS. We decide that a thirty seven day suspension without pay constitutes an adverse employment action regardless of whether the suspension is followed by a reinstatement with back pay. In which position Ellis earned more pay than he would have if he had continued working in the forklift position. White was the only female working in the Maintenance of Way department at the Tennessee Yard. White's immediate supervisor was foreman Bill Joiner. He also admitted that he did not believe that the Maintenance of Way department was an appropriate place for women to work. Joiner repeatedly expressed this belief to her while she was working under his supervision. Another Burlington Northern employee agreed at trial that there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="784"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0793p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We reject the Summers rule in favor of one circumscribing the use of after acquired evidence to the remedies phase of an employment discrimination suit brought pursuant to Title VII or ADEA.[fn2] We will therefore reverse the district court's order granting summary judgment to Harleysville. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY[FN3] Harleysville hired Mardell as a Branch Life Manager in February 1988 to manage insurance agents.[fn4] Mardell appears from the record to have been an accomplished life insurance agent. Who was being promoted out of the position at Harleysville for which Mardell would be hired. Shelow was familiar with Mardell's work at Prudential and felt that she would excel as a Life Manager for Harleysville. Even though at the time he imposed the probation Mardell's work was improving and she had surpassed the yearly goal he had set for her (A 76 78. Who then was 52 years old. Contending instead that gender and/or age discrimation was the cause.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="782"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="780"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2001/012224.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lawrence to operate a facility that would have an adverse disparate racial impact upon them in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We hold that an administrative regulation cannot create an interest enforceable under section 1983 unless the interest already is implicit in the statute authorizing the regulation. The plaintiffs do not have a right enforceable through a 1983 action under the EPA's disparate impact discrimination regulations. We will reverse. We point out that the residents of Waterfront South are predominately minorities and the neighborhood is disadvantaged environmentally.1 Waterfront South contains two Superfund sites. Lawrence's business is the processing of ground granulated blast furnace slag (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0034p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that female corrections officers have been treated differently from similarly situated male corrections officers and accordingly have been denied promotions. Though they did not specify the conduct they sought to have enjoined. Because Title VII cases in which plaintiffs seek individual compensatory damages are not appropriately brought as class actions under Rule 23(b)(2) because such individual claims for money damages will always predominate over requested injunctive or declaratory relief. I. Factual and Procedural Background The facts of this case have been stated in the two prior district court opinions and the prior decision of this court. We therefore adopt the background as set forth in the opinion of the first panel of this court to deal with this case: [Belmont] is a prison operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections. Some of whose positions are covered by Ohio's civil service laws while others are covered by collective bargaining agreements with three distinct unions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july2001/99-10579.ma2.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july2001/99-10579.ma2.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (7/9/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
Is vacated. A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="775"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="771"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/96a0025p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. The Question Presented This is a direct criminal appeal by a convicted Tennessee state judge. Section 242 was adopted as a codification of prior law in 1874 during the period of Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. It criminalizes without any further definition the willful
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="769"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E9C571F39150FF1B88256C290056416C/$file/0057222.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Luce Forward's timely appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. His employment was at will. Will be heard before a retired State or Federal judge in the county containing the firm office in which you were last employed. The law of the State in which you last worked will apply. That he
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/08878B3F87AA23AB88256B970082A04D/$file/9935932.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tidyman's argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying Tidyman's' motion for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence was insufficient. That the size of the jury verdict was excessive. Tidyman's argues that the Washington state law is intended to cover only accrued wages that are not paid. Arguing that we should not apply the Title VII damages cap to these awards because it is unconstitutional. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the district court's determination that the plaintiffs were not entitled to punitive damages. We conclude that Title VII's cap on punitive damages is constitutional. Was promoted to officer manager. Hemmings was promoted to controller in 1987. Hemmings was concerned about the lack of women in management positions at Tidyman's and what she perceived as roadblocks to their promotions. Was promoted to Chief Operating Officer and the CFO position opened. Trial witnesses testified that Hemmings was wellqualified for the CFO position. Hemmings was interviewed for the position along with another woman and one man.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="766"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0800p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellees/cross appellants are 23 of 28 former yard and clerical employees of Pennsylvania Truck Lines. The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision clarifying the standards by which federal employment discrimination cases are to be judged. We will vacate the judgment that was entered and remand for a new trial. We will also decide several subsidiary issues relating to individual claims and plaintiffs. I. Because our resolution of the legal issues will require a new trial. It is not necessary to discuss the facts in great detail.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/981327.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
S 1985 and state law.1 Hankins's primary allegations are that the City denied him a promotion to become the Director of its AIDS Activities Coordinating Office (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="764"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="762"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb2001/99-10579.man.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb2001/99-10579.man.html">BASS V. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (2/21/2001, NO. 99-10579)<BR></A><BR>
A number of positions were eliminated. One of which was held by Michael Bass. Bass received a layoff notice in September 1995.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="760"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAxLTYyNDgtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/01-6248-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A liberal reading of Dotson's pro se appellate brief suggests that he raises the following challenges to the judgment of dismissal: (1) the district court should not have ruled 2 on the dismissal motion without hearing oral argument. (5) the court erred in ruling that Dotson's Bivens claim for money damages and his equitable action for reinstatement were precluded by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="757"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="755"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D12BAFD84138E886882572790082A486/$file/0416688.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McDermott Will & Emery LLP. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). Plaintiffs alleged that women employed in Wal Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions. That the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout WalMart stores. That this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal Mart stores. Which is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to WalMart's allegedly discriminatory pay and promotions policies. Who have been or may be subjected to Wal Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. While the class size was large. The issues were not unusual. INC. 1341 court clearly stated that its decision would be limited to procedural questions because an adjudication of the merits was not appropriate at that early stage. The court's finding was mixed. The court denied Plaintiffs' request for certification with respect to backpay because data relating to challenged promotions were not available for all class members.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="753"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2000/983597.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Riga's conduct was not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/023236p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which is an appellee and is participating in this appeal. Certain other parties that have been dismissed from the action or are not participating in the appeal. As the parties have done in their briefs. As a matter of convenience we will treat him as the sole appellant in this opinion referring to him as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="751"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F37D428B8113024E8825733A004B6F53/$file/0416087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The panel reasoned that Pallas no longer controlled because it was inconsistent with intervening Supreme Court authority governing retroactivity principles. Because we conclude that Pallas is not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/94-5083.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF HIALEAH (5/7/1998, NO. 94-5083)<BR></A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000e <EM>et seq.</EM> Other parts of the consent decree have been approved and entered. They are not in question. One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. The part of the decree the district court refused to enter would have granted retroactive competitive seniority to those thirty new black employees.</P> <P> The district court. We agree with the district court that the retroactive seniority part of the proposed consent decree would have diminished the seniority rights of incumbent employees. Which are legally enforceable rights guaranteed to them by their collective bargaining agreements. Or a finding that the provision was necessary and appropriate to remedy discrimination proven during a trial at which all affected parties had an opportunity to participate. We also conclude that the cross appeal is moot.</P> <P><CENTER><STRONG>I. The Hialeah workforce was approximately 17% black.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1997/97a1529p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal by certain trustees of the Barnes Foundation. Who are also African American citizens. Is removable to federal district court pursuant to the civil rights removal statute. That they were discriminated against by the Commissioners on racial grounds. We conclude that they have failed to satisfy the narrow and well defined requirements for § 1443(1) removal as explicated in State of Georgia v. We will therefore affirm the order of the district court remanding the removed action to the state court from whence it came. I. Facts & Procedural History The Barnes Foundation is a non profit Pennsylvania corporation located on Latches Lane. Its history is well known. Four of the five Foundation Trustees are to be nominated by Lincoln University. Charles Frank (defendants in the state defamation action) were trustees. Frank are African American and appellants here. The gravamen of the Foundation's federal civil rights action is that this adverse treatment was motivated by racial prejudice engendered by the fact that (1) the majority of the Foundation's Trustees are African American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="748"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="746"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="744"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Certified under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure the following class:5 1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992389.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As follows: On page 3 the list of amici curiae is corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986598.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. I. The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states: English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19978189.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 The Plaintiffs are: Major A.M. Section 1981 provides in pertinent part:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="742"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-6598.man.html">SANDOVAL V. HAGAN (11/30/1999, NO. 98-6598)<BR></A><BR>
The lawsuit is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We affirm the district court's judgment.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The factual and procedural history surrounding this case are straightforward. An English only Amendment to the Alabama Constitution was ratified. Amendment 509 states:</P> <P> English is the official language of the state of Alabama. The legislature and officials of the state of Alabama shall take all steps necessary to insure that the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama is preserved and enhanced. The legislature shall make no law which diminishes or ignores the role of English as the common language of the state of Alabama.</P> <P> Any person who is a resident of or doing business in the state of Alabama shall have standing to sue the state of Alabama to enforce this amendment. The courts of record of the state of Alabama shall have jurisdiction to hear cases brought to enforce this provision. Other interpretive aids were officially forbidden. Naming Sandoval as the representative of the class of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="739"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2001/00-14507.op2.html">ELLEN MOORE V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (9/28/2001, NO. 00-14507)<BR></A><BR>
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014507.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarranFerguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and were therefore barred by Alabama's two year statute of limitations for personal injury torts. The court found that the proposed amended complaint alleged with particularity (as that term is defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)) that Liberty National fraudulently concealed the information that gave rise to plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the two year statute of 4 limitations would be tolled under Alabama law if these specific allegations were true. The court held that the state rule of repose was inapplicable to plaintiffs' federal civil rights claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0741p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction over Ortiz's appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We will affirm. 000 voters) were slated to be purged from Philadelphia's registration rolls for failing to vote. No appeal was taken. This request was denied by order of the district court on October 6. Ortiz's appeals were dismissed for failure to prosecute. A four day trial was held to determine whether a permanent injunction should issue. Recognizing that African American and Latino voters are purged at disproportionately higher rates than their white counterparts. A. A district court's conclusion that a challenged electoral practice has a discriminatory effect is a question of fact subject to review for clear error. 79 (1986) (recognizing that determination of whether or not political process is equally open to minority voters
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="737"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2001/00-14507.op2.html">ELLEN MOORE V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (9/28/2001, NO. 00-14507)<BR></A><BR>
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="735"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/012413.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Section 2 the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="733"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014507.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Liberty National contends that plaintiffs' claims are barred by both Alabama's applicable statute of limitations and Alabama's common law doctrine of repose. Liberty National further argues that §§ 1981 and 1982 frustrate Alabama's statutory scheme of insurance regulation and are thus reverse preempted by the McCarran Ferguson Act. We do have the jurisdiction to address those claims if we choose. The district court ruled that the § 1981 claims accrued at the time the insurance contracts were made and therefore were barred by Alabama's two year statute of limitations for personal injury torts. The court found that the proposed amended complaint alleged with particularity (as that term is defined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)) that Liberty National fraudulently concealed the information that gave rise to plaintiffs' claims. The court held that the two year statute of limitations would be tolled under Alabama law if these specific allegations were true. 4 Liberty National argued that even if the complaint could not be dismissed at the pleadings stage on the basis of the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr96/94-9257.opa.html">GRAYSON V. K MART CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grayson v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The plaintiffs in the <i>Grayson</i> and <i>Helton</i> actions (together
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/04opinions/04-1118.html">THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC., V. SKYLINK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.<BR></A><BR>
Argued for plaintiff appellant.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>John F. Argued for defendant appellee.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief were <u>Andra Barmash Greene</u>. Communications Industry Association.<span style='mso spacerun:yes'> </span>With him on the brief was <u>Matthew Schruers</u>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class=MsoNormal><span style='mso bidi font s
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="730"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr96/94-9257.opa.html">GRAYSON V. K MART CORP.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Grayson v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The plaintiffs in the <i>Grayson</i> and <i>Helton</i> actions (together
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="728"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0184p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0184p.06 University's affirmative action procedures and occurred while he was acting in his official position and consisted only of a letter and memos addressed to the president and other members of the Board of Trustees (of which plaintiff was a member as Vice President of Human Relations). I think that the University had a significant interest in regulating the speech to make certain that it was presented in the most informative and helpful manner. I believe that in this situation the plaintiff's speech is not entitled to First Amendment protections. Who is African American. Was employed by the University of Cincinnati (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=08&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1246A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goodkin were on brief. Davis were on brief. The question raised is whether Congress intended to prohibit enforcement of pre dispute arbitration agreements covering employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a matter of law in all cases or at least under certain facts said to be present here. The form itself did not state which claims were to be arbitrated. Rather referred to the rules of various organizations with which Rosenberg was registering. When her employment was later terminated. Was not an adequate forum due to what the district court called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="726"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/034356p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge This is a suit seeking declaratory 1 and injunctive relief compelling the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh to comply with regulations the Department of Housing and Urban Development promulgated pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Our task here is to determine whether appellants may properly maintain a suit to enforce the HUD regulations. There are certainly steps HUD itself can and should take to effect compliance. The District Court partially dismissed a p p e llants' com plaint because it determined that they did not have a private right of action to enforce the HUD regulations. We will affirm the denial of a right of action to enforce the regulations. I. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is commonly referred to as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9C382D0C30B8A79A88256C09005930CE/$file/9915645.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That sex was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="724"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTUyNzItY3YucGRm/05-5272-cv.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge) erred in dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination on the ground that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not prohibit discriminatory conduct occurring while a plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Is limited to covering
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="721"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0275p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Attached to the declarations were exhibits containing evidentiary material that had not previously been submitted by TVA. Arguing that it was not timely. Was employed with TVA from April of 1977 to September 26. He was a Safety Specialist in TVA's Labor and Safety organization. He had a grade level of SD 4 and was a 60% disabled veteran. His non selection for fortythree vacant positions to which he applied after he was given notice of his RIF. 1. Plaintiff was assigned to perform a safety inspection at TVA's Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage Plant (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4BE1119E376BDA5888256D6D0078E680/$file/0135032.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Each plaintiff was disenfranchised. The cause of this disparate impact on their right to vote was external to the felon disenfranchisement provision itself and therefore could not provide the requisite causal link between the voting qualification and the prohibited discriminatory result. Is compelling.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="719"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center. Of who made the annexation request or whether any meeting was ever held.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975091.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I. The historical facts and the procedural history necessary to understand this lawsuit are complex and extensive. The City of Belle Glade is an incorporated municipality located on the western side of Palm Beach County. Was populated by whites and stood at the City's northwest corner. Was populated by blacks and was located to the southwest of the City. These ordinances were repealed. The total population of the City of Belle Glade was 11. 393 (65.6%) were non whites and 3. 880 (34.4%) were whites.2 The following year. The population of the Osceola Center was 46% black. Whereas the population of the Okeechobee Center was 92% black and 8% Hispanic. 4 2 1 BGHA. The City Commission's minutes simply reflect that a meeting was to be arranged between the City Commission and the BGHA to discuss the possibility of annexing the Okeechobee Center.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june99/97-5091.opn.html">BURTON V. CITY OF BELLE GLADE (6/25/1999, NO. 97-5091)<BR></A><BR>
The district court also erred in holding that the remedies they sought including the unusual remedy of ordering a city to annex property into its municipal boundaries were neither available under the Voting Rights Act nor permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reverse and remand Appellants' cause of action to enforce Title VI's disparate impact regulations for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971667A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Each alleged she: (1) was delayed in receiving a firearm. (2) was not promoted. (3) was not selected to attend the police academy operated by the Vir *Judge Ervin heard oral argument in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. 2 ginia Commonwealth University (the Police Academy). (4) was discharged. Because she is a woman.1 Johnson alone alleged a sexual harassment claim. Both oral and written examinations are required. Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to Walter H. Johnson alleges that she was constructively discharged. 3 (Department Supervisor Miller). Overall supervision of the Department was assigned to S. The decision to recommend an individual for promotion to a rank above corporal was made by a panel of individuals from both inside and outside VUU. While the Department's Chief of Police was not a member of this panel. Chief Wells was responsible for the daily operation and administration of the Department. Chief Wells was authorized to select who among the Department's officers could attend the Police Academy.2 Of relevance to this appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="717"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0203p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiff Dana Derungs was shopping at the Wal Mart store located in Lebanon. She was prohibited from doing so by a WalMart employee and told that she had the option of breast The Honorable Gerald E. Gore was waiting in a lay a way line at a Wal Mart store in Trotwood. She started to breast feed Austin but was interrupted by a Wal Mart employee who told her she was not permitted to breast feed her son in the store. Baird was interrupted by a store employee and informed that she could either breast feed in the restroom or had to leave the store. The complaint was amended to add Angie Baird and her infant daughter. Wal Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment on the remaining common law claims was granted. A Final Judgment was entered on April 11. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to the district court's decision to grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is de novo. Summary judgment is proper if
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/02a0170p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bollinger Page 3 appeal the district court's determination that the Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in its admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.1 The Law School contends that its interest in achieving a diverse student body is compelling under Regents of the University of California v. That its admissions policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The Law School is joined by the Intervenors: forty one individuals and three student groups. The policy states that the Law School's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="715"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1249.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Murphy and Menard Murphy & Walsh were on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. On the basis that the action was preempted by federal law. While Doulamis is not named as the aggrieved employee in these charges. Both parties agree that the employee referred to therein is. It is also alleged that these employees formed. That Chaulk's conduct was a deliberate attempt to discourage the employees from engaging in these activities. A full and comprehensive settlement agreement was reached between Chaulk and the NLRB in March 1995 regarding these claims. In that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="712"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/98-3011.htm">98-3011 -- HAMPTON V. DILLARD DEPT. STORES INC. -- 04/24/2001<BR></A><BR>
Hampton
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1530.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Labinger</SPAN> were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0299p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND The background of this case is thoroughly discussed in the findings of fact of the district court. CFE's basic complaint is that MHSAA discriminates against female high school athletes by scheduling girls' sports to play in disadvantageous. Our task is now to reevaluate this claim in light of the Supreme Court's GVR. CFE responds by contending that Rancho Palos Verdes does not apply to the present case and that CFE is therefore entitled to prevail under both Title IX and § 1983. Standard of review Constitutional and statutory interpretation questions are issues of law. Or recent developments that we have reason to believe the court below did not fully consider. A GVR order is . . . potentially appropriate. 167 (1996) (holding that a GVR is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="710"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=06&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="708"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1395p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hutchinson was a member of the original panel which heard argument in this appeal on January 24. Before the appeal was resolved. Chief Judge Sloviter was designated to serve in his place on the reconstituted panel. ** Judge Sarokin heard argument but retired from office prior to the issuance of the opinion. It is clear that the language of Title VII is violated when an employer makes an employment decision based upon an employee's race. That Title VII's prohibition against racial discrimination is not violated by affirmative action plans which first.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="706"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1766p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We find that Chowdhury is not dispositive on this issue. Chowdhury did not apply this court's test for determining when it is appropriate to imply a private right of action to enforce regulations. We agree with the overwhelming number of courts of appeals that have indicated. We will reverse. 4 I. The City of Chester is located in Delaware County. Of which 65% is black and 32% is white. Of which 6.2% is black and 91% is white. It further alleges that the Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of 2.1 million tons of waste per year. While the non Chester facilities have a total permit capacity of only 1. That: Each Federal department and agency which is empowered to extend Federal financial assistance to any program or activity. Is authorized and directed to effectuate the provisions of section 2000d of this title with respect to such program or activity by issuing rules. Or orders of general applicability which shall be consistent with achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the financial assistance in connection with which the action is taken. 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="704"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3442.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief was Francesca Alvaro. With her on the brief were Neil A.G. Garcia had not proven that her actions were involuntary and therefore dismissed Ms. I An adverse action is an official action taken by a federal agency and imposed on an employee. Such official action is by statute clearly within the jurisdiction of the Board. An aggrieved employee can appeal such an action to the Board for a determination as to whether the action was proper. 5 U.S.C. § 7513(d) (2000). It deals with what is known as a constructive adverse action. Although a resignation is ostensibly a voluntary separation from employment. It is possible that an employee can be coerced into resigning by actions of the employing agency. Such an involuntary adverse action is known as a constructive adverse action. Garcia alleges that the constructive adverse action was prompted by a violation of her rights to be free from discrimination in the workplace. It is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=01">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-3063.htm">97-3063 -- GUDENKAUF V. STAUFFER COMMUNICATIONS INC. -- 09/29/1998<BR></A><BR>
Alleging that she was terminated in violation of several federal statutes. Gudenkauf was motivated in part by her pregnancy. That she would have been terminated in any event. The district court held she was entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs. Gudenkauf alleged that her termination was the result of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Gudenkauf was not a prevailing party entitled to a fee because she had obtained no relief. Gudenkauf had failed to provide proof in support of her fee claims and that the amounts requested were grossly excessive. <p> The district court rejected Stauffer's argument that Ms. Gudenkauf was not a prevailing party and its argument that Ms. Gudenkauf is not entitled to a fee in any event because she obtained only a technical victory. Stauffer argues that the fee award was excessive in view of the fact the Ms. We first address Stauffer's claim that the district court should have followed the Supreme Court's analysis in <em>Farrar</em> and denied any award of attorney's fees based on Ms.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2001/99-14563.opn.html">JOHNSON V. K MART CORP. (11/21/2001, NO. 99-14563)<BR></A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). </SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-7.gif" ALT="701"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199914563.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We consider the question whether a former employee as against a current employee or an applicant is eligible to file suit under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Robinson mandates the conclusion that Gonzales is no longer good law and must be deemed overruled. Appellant is eligible to file suit under Title I. Who was then the manager of a K Mart store in Tampa. Employees who are disabled due to a mental illness may receive salary replacement benefits for two years. After which K Mart responded by filing a motion to dismiss on two grounds: (1) that appellant was not within the protective ambit of § 12112(a) because. He was not a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="699"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/06/992853P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case is before the court on remand from the Supreme Court for further consideration in light of National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Is entitled to recover punitive damages for conduct occurring outside the statute of limitations.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="697"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-2788.man.html">KIMEL V. FLORIDA BD. OF REGENTS (4/30/1998, NO. 96-2788)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: 1 1 Judge Edmondson announces the judgment for the Court in this 3 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity case. We agree with the Northern District of Alabama that suits in by private parties for against ADEA States federal court 6 violations are prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment. The cases were appealed for us to decide whether Congress abrogated sovereign immunity when it enacted the relevant statutes. 3 Because this appeal presents only questions of law. This appeal is properly before this Court under the collateral order doctrine. The facts of each Plaintiff's claim will not be discussed. Discussion A district a court's order to denying dismiss or a granting motion complaint against a State based on the Eleventh Amendment's grant of sovereign immunity is reviewed by this court de novo. 2507 n.7 (1980) (Eleventh Amendment principles are not applicable to suits in state court.). 10 4 Congress pursuant to the Commerce Clause could.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="695"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19962788.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:1 Three cases presenting the same or similar issues of Eleventh Amendment immunity were consolidated and are addressed in this appeal. The issues in this appeal are whether Congress abrogated States' Eleventh Amendment immunity for suits under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="692"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/04/01-1228.htm">01-1228 -- QUIGLEY V. ROSENTHAL -- 04/22/2003<BR></A><BR>
BACKGROUND</strong></center> <p> Plaintiffs William and Dorothy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0107n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. I. Plaintiffs are all hourly employees over the age of 40 who work for Tyson. Each is a recipient of a pension from the former owner of the Tyson facility. The Tapered Bearing Division of SKF was experiencing financial difficulties. Most SKF tapered bearing employees were represented by the United Steelworkers of America. Tyson understood that SKF was losing money and that the Tapered Bearing Division was expecting reduced sales volumes on an on going basis. That issue is not before the Court. 1 2 covered by the Union contract. The concept of second tier employees was memorialized in a Memorandum of Agreement. In pertinent part: It is contemplated . . . that certain members of the bargaining unit. Will retire under the SKF Pension Plan. Pursuant to the 30 Year Retirement without actuarial reduction option (including these employees who are eligible to age into such option pursuant to the 1999 amendments to the labor contract) described in a Memorandum of Understanding between SKF and the Union or pursuant to an Early Retirement option with actuarial reduction.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="690"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1246.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Goodkin were on brief. Davis were on brief. The question raised is whether Congress intended to prohibit enforcement of pre dispute arbitration agreements covering employment discrimination claims under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act as a matter of law in all cases or at least under certain facts said to be present here. The form itself did not state which claims were to be arbitrated. Rather referred to the rules of various organizations with which Rosenberg was registering. When her employment was later terminated. Was not an adequate forum due to what the district court called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-6062.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are employees of the City of Altus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. Approximately 29 City employees are Hispanic. All Plaintiffs are Hispanic and bilingual. Received a complaint that because Street Department employees were speaking Spanish. Other employees could not understand what was being said on <hr> the City radio. Sanchez was particularly concerned that his subordinates. The letter informed Nettles that employees had not been given proper notice if this was a new administrative policy and questioned whether Willis and the City had followed proper procedures in implementing the new policy. Sanchez reported that Willis had told him that the reason Hispanics speak Spanish
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="688"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139REVOPN.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0998p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This matter is an appeal and a cross appeal from a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff on his claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="686"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Died before it was released. 2 1 Attorney for Appellant Evan C. The ministerial exception was created to protect church autonomy and avoid entangling government in religious affairs. Where otherwise illegal discrimination is based on religious belief. Or the internal regulations of a church is simply the exercise of intolerance. Demoted her because she is a woman and because 5 she opposed sexual harassment by Gannon officials. A motion such as Gannon's is more properly dealt with under Rule 12(b)(6). We will therefore reverse the dismissal of her Title VII claims. What we deal with here is functionally a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 6 2 religion clauses removed jurisdiction. We cannot conclude at this stage of litigation that these claims will require an examination of matters of faith. They are not barred by the religion clauses.3 I. The facts set forth below are drawn from Petruska's First Amended Complaint. Gannon University is a Catholic diocesan college located in Erie. Petruska was appointed permanent chaplain on July 1.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1139A.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ortiz Alvarez</SPAN> were on brief for the Municipality of Adjuntas. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2000/995206.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he was discharged because of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court. It alleges that Zubi was discharged by AT&T because of his race on September 28. That
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="683"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3271.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before the court is a single certified question:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0889p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because the lawsuit filed by the Commonwealth was not frivolous. We will reverse the award of attorney's fees against the Commonwealth. The application was denied by the district court because the Fraternal Order of Police lacked standing. The intervening defendants were treated as plaintiffs and the plaintiff Commonwealth and defendant City were deemed defendants for the purpose of awarding fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The order granting the intervening defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying their motion to dismiss the original complaint for failure of the Commonwealth to prosecute was affirmed on appeal. The appeal of the attorney's fees award was dismissed because the fee award had not been quantified and therefore was not a final order. The Commonwealth was required to pay 75%. The City was ordered to pay 25%. Or the facts on which the determination rests are clearly erroneous.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="681"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0300p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was a member of the panel. This case presents the question of whether a change in a rule governing the adjudication of social security disability benefits claims that is applied as of its effective date to all pending cases has an impermissibly retroactive effect. Have their primary effect on claimants' applications when the claimants appear before the agency to have their claims decided on the merits. The change in the rule is thus not impermissibly retroactive. When Combs' claim was administratively adjudicated. It was not impermissibly retroactive in its effect. The district court correctly concluded that the Agency's determination in this case is supported by substantial evidence. The five steps are as follows: In step one. The SSA identifies claimants who
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0096p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
At the time the lawsuit was filed. The court held that Plaintiffs had not alleged that Defendants adopted or adhered to the 25 percent rule because of rather than in spite of its disparate impact on females and that sheer disparate impact is insufficient to demonstrate an equal protection violation. While Plaintiffs' first appeal was pending in this Court. The Kentucky General Assembly amended the statute regulating discriminatory effect is a requirement of Title IX. Because Defendants are charged with knowledge of the law. It follows that remand is appropriate to determine whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights. I would reverse the district court's dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims of monetary relief and remand for a determination of whether Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Plaintiffs' Title IX rights in accordance with Davis. I would also reserve judgment as to whether Plaintiffs were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="677"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0418p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That gender was not a bona fide occupational qualification (a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="674"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1517.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Luckerman</SPAN> was on brief. Russell</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/003195.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The primary issue raised by this appeal is whether Centre County violated the appellants' civil rights by excluding them from participation in the County's foster care program because their son has HIV and AIDS. Names have been changed to preserve confidentiality. 3 Foster Child Program. County officials responded by adopting a policy providing that foster families whose members have
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=03-3536_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="672"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/10/981715P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried to a jury for eighteen days. Employees within a peer group then were listed from best to worst as to performance and from best to worst as to potential. Employees were placed on a matrix that reflected their The Honorable Ronald E. Sitting by designation. 2 1 Entergy is not appealing the five judgments entered against it. 2 relative performance and potential. These results were progressively
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="670"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0385n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The City defendants were granted summary judgment. We also find that the plan was narrowly tailored. We affirm the district court's finding that the claims are without sufficient support in the record. Only the evidence involving the CPD's hiring history will be reviewed. C72 1088 and C77 346 were consolidated. 1 2 examination discriminated against minorities. The district court also found that the examinations were not validated for job performance. The district court's conclusion was buttressed by the historical workforce disparities between minorities and non minorities. The 18% rate was equal to the percentage of examination passers who were minorities. The district court directed the defendants to create an examination that was job related. Approximately 39.5% were minorities. It would take another look at whether the City was engaging in racial discrimination. The parties stipulated that the CPD would utilize
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="668"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1224.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Schnitzler & Krupman were on briefs for appellants. P.A. were on brief for appellee. Morrison alleged that she was subjected by Carleton and the other defendants to sexual harassment. A United States Magistrate Judge presided over the jury trial and subsequently determined the various non jury issues. 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (West 1993). 2 (Count I) and sex (gender) discrimination (Count II) were presented to the jury but only insofar as these claims were based upon conduct occurring on or after November 21. The ADA disability discrimination claim (Count IV) was likewise presented to the jury. 1991 conduct did not go to the jury but rather were reserved for later decision by the magistrate judge. In determining that Morrison was not disabled. Other relief were denied. Plaintiff's own motion for new trial was also denied. Morrison was hired by the Company to work as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug97/94-9121.ma2.html">DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06A0476P-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug97/94-9121.ma2.html">DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF EDUC.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Davis v. 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0476p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The proposal was scheduled to go into effect on December 23. At stake today is whether the federal courts should permit this state initiative to go into effect or whether we should preliminarily enjoin it in part in the part. That is. Uncertainty about the law's impact on current admissions policies and uncertainty about changing admissions policies in the middle of the current enrollment season we are unable to identify any tenable basis under federal law for suspending the law's enforcement. We have no choice but to permit its enforcement in accordance with the state law framework that gave it birth. I. Legal and policy debates about admissions preferences in the university setting are not new to the people of Michigan. The executive director of which is Jennifer Gratz. Fourth:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="665"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200312230.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nor that damages were incidental to equitable and declaratory relief or that common questions of law or fact predominated. We are persuaded by none of the plaintiffs' arguments The plaintiffs/appellants are Cornelius Cooper. I. The complex facts and procedural history underlying this appeal are these. Who are The plaintiffs subsequently amended their Complaint in August. Throughout this opinion references to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/054114p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge An apolitical government employee appeals a grant of summary judgment rejecting her claim that she was fired in violation of her First Amendment rights because she failed to support the administration or political party in power. Galli alleges that she was unlawfully terminated from her position with the Commission because she was neither an active Democrat nor a 3 supporter of then newly elected Democratic Governor James McGreevey. She was hired to serve on the Commission in 1984 during the Republican administration of Governor Thomas Kean. She was the Commission's Director of Environmental Education. Galli claims that she was not registered with a political party and kept her lack of political affiliation private. Galli never shared her political views with her supervisor and was not asked to participate in any partisan political activity. Solid waste management is an affiliate of the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and is governed by a seven member Board. Levin was appointed as the Director of the Department of Community Affairs.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/FD89E0111BECD15888256D8E005A3A94/$file/0230079.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were socializing at Pioneer Park. When approximately nine white supremacists who were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="663"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/06/003159P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The cases were brought by two professors and several administrative staff against the University of Arkansas. In each case the district court1 ruled that the Title VII claims were not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. She also claimed that she was subjected to hostile workplace harassment and retaliation and that Arkansas had violated the Constitution and state law. Okruhlik also alleged that she was subjected to more stringent tenure review than her male colleagues. Schilcher alleged that she was discriminated against in terms of her employment. Lunnie and Robinson also alleged that they were retaliated against for filing an EEOC complaint. 5 In each case Arkansas filed a motion to dismiss. Arkansas asserted in addition that the state claims of Okruhlik and Schilcher were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and state immunity and that Schilcher had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The district court held that the Title VII claims were not barred because Congress had validly abrogated the states's Eleventh Amendment immunity.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6226.htm">01-6226 -- SERVICE PROFESSIONALS, INC. V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=95">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1588.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
R. Gonzalez Law Office</SPAN> was on brief. P.S.C.</SPAN> were on brief. Courts in this circuit have required plaintiffs to satisfy a heightened pleading standard in civil rights actions. We recently have retreated from this view in specified instances. We are presented with an opportunity to reexamine the propriety of this praxis globally in light of emergent Supreme Court precedent. As is always the case on a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Are career employees of the Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE). Each of them was hired. These charges were based largely on the plaintiffs' assertion that the pre regime change personnel actions were valid due to officially authorized (or at least routinely tolerated) exemptions from the electoral prohibition.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="661"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/961814.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The victim alleges that these rapes were motivated by her assailants' discriminatory animus toward women and sues them pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. Morrison immediately asked Brzonkala if she would have sexual intercourse with him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7014a.html">COVINGTON DARRYL V. DC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="659"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0A1EB78DA8B420AB882571C6007C3BDA/$file/0435984.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTkzMDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-9308_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are eligible for attorney's fees because they prevailed at trial on a claim that Toys
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/986024.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appellants were members of the Union while employed by the Times. Most counts were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the appellants' failure to exhaust administrative remedies or to their lateness infiling charges. The male appellants' sex discrimination claims were dismissed for lack of standing to sue under Title VII and NJLAD. We conclude that the Amended Complaint should not have been dismissed in its entirety. We will reverse. We do so based on our determination that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="656"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/12/97-2343.htm">97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 12/20/1999<BR></A><BR>
<strong> </strong>Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6DEA7C7711AA444488256E6F005BA923/$file/0235691.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court determined that section 2 was a constitutional exercise of Congress's powers under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Blaine County challenges both of those rulings.1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is vast and sparsely populated. 009 residents are spread out over 4. The American Indian population is geographically concentrated with 80 percent of the County's American Indians residing on the Fort Belknap Reservation. No American Indian was ever elected to the Blaine County Commission under the at large voting system. Although we agree that the district court's evidentiary rulings were erroneous in one limited respect. We ultimately conclude that this error was harmless. 1 UNITED STATES v. Each commissioner is elected by a majority vote of the entire county. The County moved for summary judgment on the ground that section 2 was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress's powers to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The court found that American Indian voters were sufficiently geographically compact and politically cohesive to elect a County Commissioner of their choice.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/nov95/94-1009.html">REYNOLDS V. SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1<BR></A><BR>
She was not selected for any of the promotions. She maintains that Defendants discriminated against her because she is white. Refused to promote her even though she was the most qualified applicant for the various positions. Reynolds applied to become a middle school assistant principal.2 Reynolds interviewed for the position and was placed into a pool out of which principalship vacancies would be filled. We presume that Reynolds' reference to a principalship was to the middle school assistant principal position. of Schools. Defendants assert that they chose to leave the position vacant and later eliminate it because of anticipated budget cuts.3 Reynolds claims that they eliminated the position under the pretext of budgetary concerns to keep her from becoming Coordinator once they realized that she was the most qualified applicant for the job.4 Reynolds cites as evidence of pretext the fact that the Bilingual/ESOL department budget increased from $1. Reynolds further highlights that she was the sole white person working in the Bilingual/ESOL Department.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="654"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/991931.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendant tobacco companies have targeted the marketing of mentholated tobacco products at African Americans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2001/99-10699.man.html">HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan2001/987307.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary issue for decision is whether we should overrule the holding of Gibbs v. The prisoner has br ought a federal action or appeal that was dismissed on the gr ounds that it was frivolous. Unless the prisoner
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1615p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that Martin is required to arbitrate his discrimination claim pursuant to the grievance procedure set forth in that agreement. He was restricted from light duty work because he is African American. The footnote stated in full: This is a question of first impression in this Circuit. Section 118 is actually not codified but is set out as a note under section 1981. 3 1647 (1991). Both parties contend that the appropriate standard of review is plenary based on the fact that we are reviewing a grant of summary judgment. Matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0334p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2001/99-10699.man.html">HIPP V. LIBERTY NAT'L LIFE INS. CO. (5/29/2001, NO. 99-10699)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 300<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="652"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/02-1195.htm">02-1195 -- MONREAL V. POTTER -- 05/17/2004<BR></A><BR>
Engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Hispanic management level employees and that its policies have a disparate impact on these employees. If the counseling is unsuccessful. Medina and Figueroa) filed with the USPS individual complaints of race discrimination and retaliation.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910699.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. A plaintiff must allege discriminatory treatment within 180 or 3002 days before the representative plaintiff's charge is filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). We conclude the proper forward cutoff date is the date of filing of the representative charge. We will use the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/97opinions/97-3469.html">LARRY RANEY V. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS<BR></A><BR>
On the brief was <u>Martin . O<a NAME=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan2000/98-3041.man.html">DICKERSON V. ALACHUA COUNTY COMM'N (1/14/2000, NO. 98-3041)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> After he was demoted. Dickerson had been promoted to lieutenant and was responsible for supervising one of three shifts of corrections officers at the jail. Dickerson was demoted to sergeant after an investigation of the County jail's operations following an inmate's escape.</P> <P> The inmate. Plaintiff Dickerson was not on duty when Meissner escaped. Which was Shift I. Meissner was able to escape in part because jail managers. Who was on duty when Meissner escaped. Who was an inspector for the DOC. Dickerson claims that serious conflicts of interest should have precluded County jail employees King and Krider from participating in the investigation. Who was responsible for the jail's officer training. Knew that he did not have enough trained officers to staff the new section of the jail.</P> <P> After completing the investigation for the DOC. Inspector Schenck issued a report citing the County jail for violating a newly enacted state rule about posting uncertified officers alone in housing units where inmates are confined.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan2000/98-3041.man.html">DICKERSON V. ALACHUA COUNTY COMM'N (1/14/2000, NO. 98-3041)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> After he was demoted. Dickerson had been promoted to lieutenant and was responsible for supervising one of three shifts of corrections officers at the jail. Dickerson was demoted to sergeant after an investigation of the County jail's operations following an inmate's escape.</P> <P> The inmate. Plaintiff Dickerson was not on duty when Meissner escaped. Which was Shift I. Meissner was able to escape in part because jail managers. Who was on duty when Meissner escaped. Who was an inspector for the DOC. Dickerson claims that serious conflicts of interest should have precluded County jail employees King and Krider from participating in the investigation. Who was responsible for the jail's officer training. Knew that he did not have enough trained officers to staff the new section of the jail.</P> <P> After completing the investigation for the DOC. Inspector Schenck issued a report citing the County jail for violating a newly enacted state rule about posting uncertified officers alone in housing units where inmates are confined.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=03&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/95-3255.opn.html">ARMSTRONG V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. (4/16/1998, NO. 95-3255)<BR></A><BR>
Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all asserted members of the putative class
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1999/991222.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A. The Parties Plaintiff Tai Kwan Cureton is an African American who graduated from Simon Gratz High School in Philadelphia in June 1996 ranking 27th in a class of 305 students. Cureton was a member of the track team and earned both academic and athletic honors as a high school student. The SAT is a nationally recognized standardized test. Have emphasized the SAT in this action so we discuss only that test. 5 Plaintiff Leatrice Shaw is an African American who also graduated from Simon Gratz High School and was ranked 5th in a class of 305 students. Shaw was a member of the track team and earned both academic and athletic honors and was selected for membership in the National Honor Society. She was unable to compete on the track team during her freshman year because of the NCAA regulations at issue here. Plaintiffs Andrea Gardner and Alexander Wesby are African American student athletes who exceeded the NCAA minimum GPA requirement for freshman year athletic participation. Though they originally were not parties.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/95-3255.opn.html">ARMSTRONG V. MARTIN MARIETTA CORP. (4/16/1998, NO. 95-3255)<BR></A><BR>
Hull and Stanley Marcus became members of the court after this case was argued and taken under submission. The Supreme Court held that the commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of limitations for all asserted members of the putative class
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="650"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/199910699.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We conclude the similarly situated requirement is not particularly stringent. We will use the terms
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="647"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1657.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0952p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge We are asked to decide if the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=07&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=00">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="645"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2024B9863BDEA09288256DCE00764415/$file/0157013.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that Liu failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Amway's reasons for Defendant Amway is now named Alticor. AMWAY CORPORATION 15593 terminating her were pretextual and. The district court held that Amway had not interfered with Liu's FMLA/CFRA leave because Liu was on leave when she was terminated. Xin Liu was the first scientist hired in the Concentrate Development Department of the Nutrilite Division of Amway Corporation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2142.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Jr.</U> was on brief for appellant.</FONT> <BR WP=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/94a0977p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a district court's judgment predicated on its opinion holding that an employer violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="643"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1995/95a0977p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a district court's judgment predicated on its opinion holding that an employer violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/006634.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Concluding that Wessel's claim was barred by the State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wessel was committed to the custody of the Maryland Division of Corrections. All inmates are awarded a certain number of good conduct credits at the outset of their sentences. Completing a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="641"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2117C3F27A15721988256E740074754D/$file/0216532.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because NIBCO has failed to demonstrate that the protective order was either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. I. Factual and Procedural Background The plaintiffs in this dispute are twenty three Latina and Southeast Asian female immigrants once employed as production workers at NIBCO's factory in Fresno. California.1 All of the plaintiffs are of limited English proficiency. NIBCO allegedly responded with a The suit was originally brought by twenty five named plaintiffs as representatives of a similarly situated class. Some plaintiffs were demoted or transferred to undesirable job assignments. All plaintiffs were terminated in the period between July 30. NIBCO asked where she was married and where she was born. Although Rivera had specified that she was of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1997/12/95-4084.htm">95-4084 -- BAUCHMAN V. WEST HIGH SCHOOL (SALT LAKE CITY) -- 12/18/1997<BR></A><BR>
The Religion and Speech clauses of the Utah Constitution. <p> The constitutional issues raised in this appeal are issues of acute public interest issues which evoke diverse opinions and strong emotions. Bauchman's claims focus on religious neutrality in public schools only intensifies that interest and emotion.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="638"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4D13CFEE5F50B0CB88256E5A00707D84/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/97-4364.man.html">HARPER V. BLOCKBUSTER ENTERTAINMENT CORP. (4/29/1998, NO. 97-4364)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The plaintiffs in this case are four males formerly employed by Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/97-4364.man.html">HARPER V. BLOCKBUSTER ENTERTAINMENT CORP. (4/29/1998, NO. 97-4364)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The plaintiffs in this case are four males formerly employed by Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F382C43F9898192588256B1F00573AA6/$file/9916321.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was authored by Judge Berzon. 16751 D.C. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. I. BACKGROUND Hibbs was an employee of the Nevada Department of Human Resources. His request was approved for the full 480 16756 hours (12 weeks) of leave under the FMLA.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974364.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Honorable Stanley Marcus was a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida sitting by designation as a member of this panel when this appeal was argued and taken under submission. Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are four males formerly employed by Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-7219a.html">BARBOUR MARTIN W. V. MERRILL, MARK H.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1929.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. and Elizabeth Bartholet were on brief for defendants. Fiore and Sulloway & Hollis were on brief for Genevieve A. P.A. were on brief for Brian Miller. The plaintiffs Genevieve Scarfo and Brian Miller are former employees of defendant Cabletron Systems. Were also defendants in the district court. Each party opposing a claim of error asserts that no timely objection or request was made in the trial court. Is to ask: Should we hold that the appellant (or cross appellant) on each claim of error now before us is not entitled to be heard on the merits of that contention in the circumstances of this appeal? The search requires also that we take account of Supreme Court and circuit decisions handed down after this case was argued. Commentators and opinion writers have invoked imagery of the almost impenetrable. They have spoken. Dissenting) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="636"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19974364.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs in this case are four males formerly employed by Blockbuster Entertainment Corp. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec99/98-6600.man.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. <A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar2001/992055.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a Pennsylvania corporation that operates an art gallery on North Latches Lane in Lower Merion Township. The Indenture provides that the Foundation's purpose is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/08/97-2343.htm">97-2343 -- PERRY V. WOODWARD -- 08/27/1999<BR></A><BR>
Alleging she was discriminated against on the basis of her race and retaliated against because she opposed employment practices made unlawful by state and federal laws. 1981 because she was an at will employee. The district court also held that Perry was required to present evidence of intentional discrimination to prevail under 42 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may2000/99-10782.man.html">RUTSTEIN V. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYS. (5/11/2000, NO. 99-10782)<BR></A><BR>
We now reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated by the fact that the original plaintiff. Was apparently not all that he claimed to be. A Yeshiva was understood to be someone with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/07/053910P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The original complaint was filed in April 2003 by Gregory and the Turners. It was amended one year later to add the other plaintiffs. The thirteen African American appellants are predominantly residents of Columbia or nearby communities. The complaint alleges further that the plaintiffs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="634"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may2000/99-10782.man.html">RUTSTEIN V. AVIS RENT-A-CAR SYS. (5/11/2000, NO. 99-10782)<BR></A><BR>
We now reverse.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> The procedural history of this case is somewhat complicated by the fact that the original plaintiff. Was apparently not all that he claimed to be. A Yeshiva was understood to be someone with a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/96-4052.man.html">JOHNSON V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Johnson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2002/08/01-6226a.htm">01-6226A -- HARRIS V. ALLSTATE INSURANCE CO. -- 08/15/2002<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judges. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/4B59A3A43DA54A9B88256AC5005B2A39/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may97/96-4052.man.html">JOHNSON V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Johnson v. Circuit Judge:<p> <p> Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/80B97FB14A01E13588256E5A00707CBE/$file/9917350.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We reverse the summary judgment and remand for further proceedings to determine whether equitable considerations excuse Rodriguez's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. 13059 BACKGROUND Rodriguez was employed as a delivery truck driver by Airborne for seven years. Until he was terminated in 1995. Rodriguez contends that his attendance problems were caused by his severe mental depression that resulted from the death of his infant son and other family difficulties. Although his supervisors at Airborne were well aware that his absences were caused by his depression and the side effects of his anti depressant medications. Was terminated on December 11. Left blank all questions pertaining to 1 FEHA is California's civil rights statute that proscribes employment discrimination on account of age. He was interviewed that same day by DFEH consultant Victor Aguirre. Explaining that it was the cause of his absences. He told Aguirre that his depression was due to the death of his child and separation from his wife.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="632"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200116723ord.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
BY THE COURT: The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED. /s/ J L EDMONDSON Chief Judge 2 BIRCH. Specially Concurring in the Denial of Rehearing En Banc: The dissents to the denial of rehearing en banc both agree that the Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Florida statute at issue should have been embraced by our court. 4 the vociferous dissent by my sister jurist (for whom I have great respect and affection). The Florida adoption statute at issue is constitutionally flawed. The Lofton panel's analysis and approach in this case was premised on a fundamental principal or philosophy. When he observed: Courts are not representative bodies. They are not designed to be a good reflex of a democratic society. ... Their essential quality is detachment. History teaches that the independence of the judiciary is jeopardized when courts become embroiled in the passions of the day and assume primary responsibility in choosing between competing political.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/96-4052.ma2.html">JOHNSON V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (8/3/1998, NO. 96-4052)<BR></A><BR>
The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied.</P> <P> Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211303.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question before us is whether Title IX implies a private right of action in favor of individuals who. Suffer retaliation because they have complained about gender discrimination suffered by others. The facts stated in appellant's complaint and all reasonable inferences therefrom are taken as true.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964052.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. This count is not at issue on this appeal. 1 * by a municipality and its employees.2 The district court denied the motion. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/96-4052.ma2.html">JOHNSON V. CITY OF FORT LAUDERDALE (8/3/1998, NO. 96-4052)<BR></A><BR>
The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied.</P> <P> Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="630"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B1C3B4BFD1CEAE8E88256C3E0057C78C/$file/9816924.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This case presents the question of whether an employee who alleges that he was subjected to severe. Even if that employee also alleges that the motivation for that discrimination was his sexual orientation. We would hold that an employee's sexual orientation is irrelevant for purposes of Title VII. That the harasser is. Motivated by hostility based on sexual orientation is similarly irrelevant. It is enough that the harasser have engaged in severe or pervasive unwelcome physical conduct of a sexual nature. The relevant facts are not in dispute. High profile and famous guests for whom that floor was reserved. Were also male. Rene gave deposition testimony that he was caressed and hugged and that his coworkers would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Sep2004/Sep02/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Aug2004/Aug11/03-50608-CV0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are proper defendants under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and are not immune under the Eleventh Amendment. These arguments are beyond the scope of this interlocutory appeal. Background 2 Plaintiffs are twenty one mentally disabled Texas residents (most of whom sue through their next friends) and the Arc of Texas (a nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of individuals with mental disabilities). Defendants are three Texas state officers sued in their official capacities as Commissioners of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are not adequately providing community based living options to individuals. The programs to which Plaintiffs seek access are offered by Texas as part of its Medicaid plan. 901 (2004). state participation is voluntary. Which is still pending in the district court. Certain obligations that otherwise attach to states' provision of Medicaid services are waived.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/97-5121.ma3.html">MENDOZA V. BORDEN, INC. (11/16/1999, NO. 97-5121)<BR></A><BR>
Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies.</P> <P> During most of her tenure with Borden. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that:</P> <P> the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office.</P> <P>Later. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct:</P> <P> He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him. Mendoza reiterated that Page's following and watching
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov2000/983558.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Elizabeth Lake is mentally retarded. She was permanently sterilized. Against the hospital where it was 2 performed. Although we agree with the District Court's decision that the Lakes' state claims are time barred by Pennsylvania's two year statute of limitations for personal injury suits. We do not agree with its conclusion that the federal civil rights claims are also untimely. Given our earlier decision that the mentally retar ded are a protected class for the purposes of 42 U.S.C. We must determine whether federal tolling doctrine will permit Elizabeth Lake to escape the bar of the statute of limitations on her federal claims. We will remand this case to the District Court to make this determination in further pr oceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Facts Plaintiff appellant Elizabeth Arnold Lake was born in Ventura. Until she was twelve. Elizabeth was taken to the hospital by her father and step mother. Despite the fact that Elizabeth was mentally retarded and allegedly illiterate.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19975121.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Wilson was appointed after this case was orally argued en banc. Is an active member of the court at the time the case is decided. The opinion for the Court on her sexual harassment claim is joined in full by Chief Judge Anderson and Judges Edmondson. Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that: the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct: He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/97-5121.ma3.html">MENDOZA V. BORDEN, INC. (11/16/1999, NO. 97-5121)<BR></A><BR>
Mendoza's employment ended because she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling to explain her absence as required by Borden's written personnel policies.</P> <P> During most of her tenure with Borden. Mendoza's supervisor was Daniel Page. Page was the highest ranking Borden employee at the facility. The plant where the milk was processed constituted the majority of the facility. She testified that:</P> <P> the man was constantly watching me and following me around and looking me up and down. Whether it was face to face with me or as I would get up from a lunch table or from the picnic table to walk away and to go back to the office.</P> <P>Later. Mendoza further explained Page's conduct:</P> <P> He seemed to be wherever I was in the plant. He was at a lunch table in the lunch room. When I was face to face with him. Mendoza reiterated that Page's following and watching
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="627"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1996/96a1252p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because we are bound by our court's decision in Fuentes v. She was subsequently promoted to hostess in the Lobby Lounge. She was transferred to the Green Room restaurant and was promoted to head captain of the breakfast and lunch shifts.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964052.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied. Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. This count is not at issue on this appeal. 2 1 harassment. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19964052.MA2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The petition for panel rehearing is otherwise denied. Herbert Johnson is a black male and former employee of the City of Fort Lauderdale Fire Department. Recognizing that its order
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/07/953387P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Iowa. five percent of the 279 employees at the plant are male. harassment. Bagging meant
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7ACE985610E84B3188256ED900685F91/$file/0235805.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WILL ACKLES. North Puget Sound Presbytery (together the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F934FB14E553C7F488257346004A035C/$file/0516517.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dissent by Judge Bea *Michael Chertoff is substituted for his predecessor. Plaintiffs allege that discriminatory acts began after Border Patrol Agent Rowdy Adams (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="625"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2218.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Foley</SPAN> was on brief. Turnbull</SPAN> were on brief. Alexander argues that the court's specific factual determinations underlying the award of punitive damages are clearly erroneous and that the evidence in its totality does not meet the legal standard for such an award. Alexander argues that punitive damages are unavailable against her in any event because neither Powell's complaint nor the course of subsequent proceedings adequately put her on notice that she was being sued in her individual capacity and was therefore subject to personal liability for punitive damages. </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/AFEC17EC549D71DC88256B2900629026/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2000/03/98-1350.htm">98-1350 -- POWELL V. COBE LABORATORIES INC. -- 03/02/2000<BR></A><BR>
Powell frequently inquired about formal procedures for the planner position but was told none existed. She was offered an entry level production job to allow her to continue to search for what she determined to be suitable employment within the company. Or were positions for which she did not qualify. Powell claims it was during this time period. Scheck's starting salary was $32. Powell's Motion to File Supplemental Appendix as the additional material offered was either provided by COBE. We do not have the time or resources to catalogue every objection we have to the attorneys' conduct other than to echo the lament voiced by Senior District Judge Stuart. Sitting by designation with the Eighth Circuit: <p> The most troublesome aspect of this lawsuit is the lack of professionalism and civility displayed by the lawyers.... This case serves as an example of the unfortunate lack of civility in the practice of law which is receiving considerable attention at this time.... The motions are denied. <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200015111.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That were directed at counsel for Defendant Tenneco Packaging Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0261p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Of which Wright was aware. Three people were working at the time. Wright reported that Bradley was responsible for this breach of security. Muntz proceeded to transfer her and told her not to have contact with anyone at Nike. Muntz investigated and concluded that these allegations were true. Bradley told him that she was not responsible for the security breach and that Wright had harassed her and other women employees. Bradley's allegations led Muntz to doubt Wright's conclusion that Bradley was responsible for the security breach and Muntz's decision to transfer Bradley. Explained that she feared she would lose her job if she refused to have sex with him. Muntz and Beach told Wright that Nike was dissatisfied with his performance and that he had been investigated for sexual harassment No. 05 5301 Wright v. Explaining that this decision was based on (1) the sexual harassment allegations made against him. We will affirm a grant of summary judgment
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3F53F340593FE73888256E5A00707D9D/$file/9955448.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Marjati Winarto was laid off from her job with Toshiba America Electronic Components. After the verdicts were returned. Remand for a new trial to determine whether Toshiba is liable for punitive damages and on the amount of punitive damages due from defendants. She was well qualified for the job. She held degrees in relevant fields and was more experienced as a computer programmer than most of the other members of the PC group. Roger Taylor (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="623"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-3343a.htm">96-3343A -- ELLIS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER -- 12/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
Is corrected as follows. The statutory citations are corrected to read
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992140.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/051222pa.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2006 * This case was originally argued on October 20. An opinion by a majority of the original panel was filed. Before the opinions were filed. Judges Cowen and Greenberg were selected at random to replace Judges Becker and Nygaard. 3 Phillip J. The resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions. 4 Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. Are barred by the ministerial exception insofar as they implicate a church's right to select its ministers under the Free Exercise Clause. They are not precluded by the exception. We will affirm the District Court's order dismissing Petruska's Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. We will remand her breach of contract claim for further consideration by the District Court. Gannon's motion to dismiss was framed in the alternative. Although we conclude that it is most properly construed as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. We note that the standard is the same when considering a facial attack under Rule 12(b)(1) or a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="621"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-3343.htm">96-3343 -- ELLIS V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER -- 12/21/1998<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200608/04-5315a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs was Kimberly Carey Williams. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives in No. 04 5315. Was on the brief for amicus curiae Congressman Henry J. With her on the briefs was Toby R. With him on the brief were Douglas B. I. No. 04 5315 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson discriminated against Beverly A. No. 045335 is an appeal from a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging that the Office of Senator Mark Dayton discriminated against Brad Hanson because of a perceived disability and violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. 4 The Office of Representative Johnson and the Office of Senator Dayton (collectively. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=05&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="618"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947024.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections. 2 In this case. White The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19986600.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question presented in this appeal is whether Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from claims arising under the disparate impact provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199810/96-7089b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Kestell was on the briefs. Hamilton were on the briefs. Was on the briefs. Thereafter was unable to perform his prior job as an orderly at Washington Hospital Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/608B5B5A21806D3588256EF90056C7CE/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is hereby amended as follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1999/982096.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Before us is an appeal by plaintiffs. The parents of several Philadelphia public school children were joined as plaintiffs by the following six organizations that devote substantial resources to overcoming what they allege are the disparate and inadequate educational programs caused by the challenged practices: (1) The Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity. Also joining as plaintiffs were several local officials and entities: (1) the School District of Philadelphia. These original plaintiffs were later joined without objection by intervenors the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Local 3 AFT AFL CIO. Our review of a district court's dismissal of a complaint is plenary. We apply the same test the district court should have used initially. We will not uphold a dismissal for failure to state a claim if.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=01&date=01&year=99">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011359.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that she was wrongfully terminated from her employment because of her sex and age and in retaliation for her complaints of such discrimination. I. Ethel Hill was hired by Lockheed as an aircraft sheet metal mechanic in 1987. Thomas Prickett was Lockheed's program manager in charge of the contract field teams and Archie Griffin was the East Coast senior site supervisor for Lockheed. They were rarely present at the individual military jobsites. Hill and the other aircraft mechanics were directly supervised by a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0160p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following facts are drawn from Smith's complaint. Smith is and has been. Smith biologically and by birth a male is a transsexual and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="616"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19947024.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Court of Civil Appeals1 are elected to office in at large partisan elections.2 The judicial power of Alabama is vested exclusively in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR>
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021573.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We describe the facts less expansively as the issues before us are narrower. Williams and Reaves are black men who served as police officers employed by the Fayetteville. It appears that there have been racial problems within the Fayetteville police department for in 1974 Fayetteville settled a discrimination action brought against it by agreeing to increase the opportunities of black officers for better trainPlaintiffs also made other section 1983 claims as well as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. State law that are not before us on this appeal. 1 4 WILLIAMS v. The parties to that litigation memorialized their settlement in a consent decree that still was in effect at the time of the events leading directly to this action. Was terminated in 1997. Was to interview any black officer who had perceived discrimination so that the complaints could be investigated. Williams and Reaves charge that the subsequent investigation of the reports of discrimination was nothing more than an effort to discredit the officers who had complained of discrimination and an attempt to determine the membership in a group of black officers called Officers for Equity that opposed racial discrimination in the police department.2 Hansen.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0892p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are engaged in. Or who would have the right to file or seek enforcement of administrative. The district court held that the case was not ripe. That the controversy is ripe because Cummings arguably alleges the statute threatens his right as an individual citizen to speak out against male and female homosexual acts and the state has expressly refused to offer any assurance it will not prosecute Cummings if he does so outside his church. Is not true of the institutional church plaintiffs. We will reverse the district court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion in so far as its order applies to Reverend Cummings. We will. We also held that the possibility of private enforcement of the Act by activist homosexual groups was too remote to constitute an immediate threat of potential harm and. The case was not ripe and that the federal court should abstain under Railroad Commission of Texas v. It held that the case was not ripe. It is unlawful for an employer
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec98/97-2952.opn.html">GONZALEZ V. LEE COUNTY HOUS. AUTH. (12/2/1998, NO. 97-2952)<BR></A><BR>
A reasonable person in Moran's position would not have known that Gonzalez's letter of September 28. A reasonable person in Moran's position would have known that her termination of Gonzalez's employment was unlawful. <U>See</U> . Moran told Gonzalez that she did not want a black person placed in a vacant elderly housing unit.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/943845P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Hamilton is incarcerated at the maximum security Potosi The facility provides crossCorrectional Center (Potosi).1 denominational religious facilities inside prison buildings. American Indian inmates at Potosi are allowed to pray. American Indians are also allowed to carry medicine bags containing ceremonial items and have access to a ceremonial pipe and kinnikinnik (a ceremonial
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="614"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3289E17C794ACECA88256D7A006C895A/$file/0136130.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Contending that he was retaliated against and ultimately fired due to his Chinese ethnicity and nationality. A Zhang's name is found in the record as both Zhang Wei. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The factual recitation herein is taken from the evidence presented to the jury. Zhang was hired to join American Gem after the takeover. Which was signed by Al Reitzer. Zhang's position was vice president of American Gem and general manager of its Pacific Gem division. Zhang testified that although his division was integral to the new company's operations. He was initially offered a lower salary than the Caucasian vice presidents of the acquired companies. Zhang was promoted to president of the Pacific Gem division. Appellant Harry Lees was hired as president and CEO of MCMI. Jim Hilger was hired as the Chief Financial Officer of American Gem. Zhang presented evidence that he was discriminated against by American Gem's management. Witnesses testified that Lees told them that he distrusted Zhang because he was Chinese. That Lees suspected that Zhang was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5407E7856E0AC35788256EB700589094/$file/0217375.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Plaintiffs in this case are physicians who provide abortions in their private medical practices in Arizona. They challenge the constitutionality of a statutory and regulatory scheme which requires the licensing and regulation of any medical facility in which five or more first trimester abortions in any month or any second or third trimester abortions are performed. I. Factual and Procedural Background1 1 Some of the evidence of record in this case is contested. They state that they are appealing
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3306.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <hr> James Bolden is not happy with the City of Topeka. He alleged discrimination based on race (he is African American) and as retaliation for protected speech. On the ground that those claims were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1BEA8BFF0FFE96B488256E7F00727F40/$file/0315112.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although there is no express claim under the Arizona Civil Rights Act. Which have the same framework of analysis. INC. wrongful discharge and intentional infliction of emotional distress under Arizona state law.2 The district court found that Bodett was unable to rebut the evidence her employer. As no distinct contract claim was made in the initial complaint. We will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044498p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The District Court was persuaded. That political affiliation was a cognizable class under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) and. The Court was also persuaded that Farber's claim that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in refusing to pursue a grievance on her behalf had been timely filed. We will affirm in part and reverse in part. 2 I. Background and Procedural History We have before us a classic example of political patronage. Was terminated from her administrative. She was informed of her termination in a letter from the City's Assistant Personnel Director. Was later hired to fill her position. A meeting was held between the Union and City representatives. Citing the fact that she was a provisional employee who could be terminated at will.1 Farber alleges that the Union's president. Was thereafter appointed as the City's Director of Public Public employment in Paterson is governed by the New Jersey Civil Service Act. The Act distinguishes between employees who are
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0262a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The following facts are drawn from Smith's complaint. Smith is and has been. Smith biologically and by birth a male is a transsexual and has been diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDEgdyBFcnJhdGEucGRm/02-6201%20w%20Errata.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Vermont officials therefore broadly prohibited Huminski's Huminski complains presence in and around certain state courthouses. that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. Confers on members of the public and press to attend and report on judicial proceedings and to speak out on public issues. other is impairment of the ability of courts effectively and efficiently to protect their personnel. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a We The presumption that he was entitled to access.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="612"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAyLTYyMDFfb3BuLnBkZg==/02-6201_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
M. Patricia Zimmerman were not entitled to the defense of judicial immunity in connection with the issuance of Vermont Notices Against Trespass broadly limiting the plaintiff's access to Vermont court property. Is a long time critic of the Vermont justice system who has sought to disseminate his message using a wide variety of means and media. Huminski complains that the restrictions are unconstitutional. One is abridgement of the rights that the First Amendment. The other is impairment of the ability of courts 1 Branzburg v. We conclude that Huminski had an individual First Amendment right of access to court proceedings even though he was not a party to and had no other official connection with them. The right created a presumption that he was entitled to access. Or proceedings and if the restrictions on his access were reasonably tailored to meet the legitimate goals of the exclusion. That this individual right was not wellsettled at the time of the events at issue here and that the defendants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity with respect thereto.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2205.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: On page 9. Replace
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=03">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/92-6257.man.html">SCLC V. SESSIONS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SCLC v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Southern Christian Leadership Conference (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="609"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/92-6257.man.html">SCLC V. SESSIONS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>SCLC v. Chief Judge:<p> <p> Appellant Southern Christian Leadership Conference (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug98/97-8299.man.html">CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8299)<BR></A><BR>
Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision was silent with regard to compensatory damages.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1996/96a1310p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That it should have dismissed his VEVRA claim for money damages for lack of jurisdiction. We will affirm in part. I. Antol is employed by the Defense Logistics Agency as a Budget Assistant. He is also a veteran of the United States Army. There were two positions available in this job classification. Who each hold a college degree but are not disabled veterans. Antol was informed on November 18. Claiming that he was not selected for the promotion based on his disability. Antol contends that the Agency discriminated against him because he is disabled and violated VEVRA when. He also contends generally that the Agency did not select him for the position because he is disabled. Because the two successful candidates were female. We view the evidence de novo and in the light most favorable to the non moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and. Whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. If the evidence is merely colorable or not significantly probative.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0521n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was a tenured professor of Psychology at Shelby State Community College (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/28474A1DA5D4DBD788256ECF008247BB/$file/0217163.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The central question in this Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) suit is whether the two private entities that stage the 9208 DISABLED RIGHTS v. So are responsible for assuring compliance with the ADA's public accommodation physical accessibility requirements. Also at issue is whether the suit can proceed without the participation of the University and Community College System of Nevada (University System). We further conclude that University System is not a necessary party under Rule 19. Factual History BACKGROUND Disabled Rights Action Committee (Disabled Rights) is a non profit organization that advocates for the rights of people with disabilities. The Rodeo is an annual competition sponsored by the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (Cowboys) and presented by Las Vegas Events (Events). The License Agreement that is currently in effect was not part of the district court record. These licensing agreements are documents of the University System. 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (explaining that a court may judicially notice matters of public record unless the matter is a fact subject to reasonable dispute).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0032p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Morris claims that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliatory harassment by her supervisor. Defendant appellee Brent Likins was appointed the new County Road Engineer.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/041847p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In 1992 he was traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike when he was unlawfully stopped. Gibson alleges that the stop and search were part of a pattern of racially discriminatory law enforcement practices undertaken by the New Jersey State Police. Gibson was released from prison after newly obtained This Opinion represents the Opinion of the Court on all issues except the discussion of the Fourth Amendment claims in Part III.A. The Opinion of the Court on those issues is contained in the Opinion of Judge Fuentes filed herewith (hereinafter referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="607"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug98/97-8299.man.html">CRAWFORD V. BABBITT (8/6/1998, NO. 97-8299)<BR></A><BR>
Was sexually harassed by her supervisors and then retaliated against when she complained about it. The decision was silent with regard to compensatory damages.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052262p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Throughout this opinion the plaintiff appellant will be referred to simply as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="605"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0396C407D8D2893B88256C4E005828BF/$file/0057099.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-6.gif" ALT="603"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-1579.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
C:\My Documents\01 1579.189.wpd
|
 |
OPINION/ORDER
Is hereby amended. Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
98-1150 -- HALL V. CLAUSSEN -- 03/06/2001
Hall's claustrophobia was not a disability covered by the ADA. (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Mr. Hall was disabled under the ADA. (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Sheriff Claussen failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hall failed to establish that he was terminated because of his disability. (6) Sheriff Claussen was prejudiced by the district court's improper admission of several items of evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings that Sheriff Claussen violated the ADA. He was able to perform all the functions of the investigator's job. Sheriff Claussen explained that these positions would have constituted promotions from Mr. Where he would have been required to guard prisoners during judicial proceedings. He was not qualified for the job. In late April 1995. He requested an assignment to one of two positions in the investigations division: a position that had been vacated by Ted Hartman or an investigator's position that was scheduled to be created on August 15.
|
|
GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This appeal offers the en banc court the opportunity to attempt to clarify the quantum and nature of evidence that will permit a jury to find that an employer engaged in impermissible employment discrimination. Who had been an employee of the Hotel du Pont since 1979 and was at the time her employment ceased one of the Head Captains of the hotel's Green Room. That she was not qualified for the position of Manager of Restaurants and that she had not applied for the position. Were pretexts for discrimination. The court concluded that
|
|
GARRETT V. UNIV. OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM BD. OF TRUSTEES (10/26/1999, NO. 98-6069)
They raise the question that is being litigated in various jurisdictions of whether a state is immune from suits by state employees asserting rights under certain federal laws. The three statutes here are: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). We hold that the state is not immune from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and reverse the judgments of the district court against plaintiffs Patricia Garrett and Milton Ash as to those two statutes and remand the two cases for further proceedings. The state is immune from suit under the specific provisions at issue here.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
In which Ochoa is a criminal defendant. Sitting by designation. 2 is an intervenor. I. BACKGROUND In the 1980s Ochoa was a high ranking member of the Medellín drug cartel based out of Medellín. Was released in 1997. He was extradited to this country in 2001. Ochoa was cash poor and land rich. Ochoa sought to admit evidence at trial about an illegal scheme called the
|
|
98-1150A -- HALL V. CLAUSSEN -- 03/06/2001
A corrected copy of page one is attached. Sincerely. Hall's claustrophobia was not a disability covered by the ADA. (3) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Mr. Hall was disabled under the ADA. (4) there is insufficient evidence to support the jury finding that Sheriff Claussen failed to reasonably accommodate Mr. Hall failed to establish that he was terminated because of his disability. (6) Sheriff Claussen was prejudiced by the district court's improper admission of several items of evidence. We conclude that the district court did not err in instructing the jury and that the evidence is sufficient to support the jury's findings that Sheriff Claussen violated the ADA. He was able to perform all the functions of the investigator's job. Sheriff Claussen explained that these positions would have constituted promotions from Mr. Where he would have been required to guard prisoners during judicial proceedings. He was not qualified for the job. In late April 1995.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The Facility is a maximum security youth detention prison housing inmates ranging in age from 13 to 16 years. COs are required to work at various posts. It further provides that GEO
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was hired as the Razorbacks' head The Honorable William R. The district court dismissed the Foundation and it is not a party on appeal. 22 1 men's basketball coach in 1985. The record is replete. Richardson was asked what he and Kentucky coach Tubby Smith discussed on the floor prior to tip off. Is that. We ain't going to have to worry about all that.
|
|
01-6008 -- CUDJOE V. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.12 -- 07/23/2002
He was evaluated by his teacher and the school counselor. These evaluations and recommendations were recorded in a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
By failing to develop a transition plan for 1 These ind ividuals are Cora L ee B oswo rth. Which was denied. The court also concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory or punitive damages because such damages are not available under Title II absent proof of intentional discrimination. Arguing that the court erred in finding that plaintiffs have a private cause of action under Title II to challenge violations of § 35.151. Be altered in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities.
|
 |
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
RANDLE V. CITY OF AURORA
This is an appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment to the Defendant Appellee City of Aurora (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The jury unanimously returned a recommendation of a sentence of death as to each of the two victims who were murdered. They were picked up by a trucker who took them part of the way. It is a 35 minute drive that the two made in Slim's pewter colored double cab Sierra GMC pickup truck. Denison was unable to assist her. That is the last time they were seen alive. Slim and Jane were in front. Her body was pulled onto the rear seat. Jane was put next to her. Slim's body was dragged out. Jane was ordered out of the truck and told by Mitchell
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Parries was initially terminated in November 1999 but was reinstated by order of an arbitrator in August 2000. He was terminated a second time. Parries alleged that both actions were based on race discrimination and that the The Hon. In 1990 and was employed there continuously until his first termination in November 1999. He was one of very few AfricanAmerican employees among the union workforce at Makino. Three of the 150 union employees were African American. When he was fired a second time. Parries was the only African American in the 30 person1 union workforce. The only protected activity alleged as a basis for his retaliation claim is the charge he filed with the Ohio Commission following his 1999 termination. Parries was not aware of its existence. Parries was placed on the second step of discipline when he returned late from break time. Parries's explanation was that he was a candidate for a union leadership position and had been discussing contract issues with a fellow union member. Parries was recorded as having committed three disciplinary infractions that were not individually punished but that led up to a
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Vacated the award of punitive damages in favor of each on the ground that the record contained insufficient evidence
|
|
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. W&O, INC. (5/30/2000, NO. 98-5515)
Circuit Judge:
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: At issue in this class action lawsuit is whether the City of Thomasville School District (
|
|
FLORIDA PARAPLEGIC ASS'N V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLA. (2/3/1999, NO. 97-5418)
42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (
|
|
CROCKER HOBART V. PIEDMONT AVIATION
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
FLORIDA PARAPLEGIC ASS'N V. MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLA. (2/3/1999, NO. 97-5418)
42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Plaintiff appellant Teresa Anne Henderson brings suit alleging she was subjected to sexual harassment by her high school soccer coach. The school district and several school administration officials are liable for sexual harassment. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted by the district court because plaintiff had failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact on any of her claims. After he was interviewed and references were contacted and a criminal background investigation was completed. Crawford was hired and commenced coaching in February 2002.1 From the outset. He made it clear to team members and their parents that he was in charge. Was told by Crawford that she would not be the captain during the 2002 season because she had an attitude. He would often invite players to his home for
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is withdrawn and replaced by the new opinion and dissent filed concurrently with this order. The petitions for panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions for rehearing will be entertained. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Sitting by designation. * Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Circuit Judge: Before this court are two consolidated appeals arising from the Pregnancy Discrimination Act case brought by Plaintiff Appellee United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
|
|
ALABAMA V. CONLEY (3/29/2001, NO. 00-14188)
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. Which is a large tract of land comprised of many lots. Which was led by ASU's vice president and one of ASU's trustees.
|
|
ALABAMA V. CONLEY (3/29/2001, NO. 00-14188)
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. Which is a large tract of land comprised of many lots. Which was led by ASU's vice president and one of ASU's trustees.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is that the district court cannot order them to post such a bond. Their fall back position is that the court cannot do it without making a finding consistent with Christiansburg Garment Co. v. That the would be appeal is frivolous. In July 2002 Greer filed a new lawsuit alleging that he had been fired by New Process Steel after the original action was filed and that the firing was retaliatory. The new lawsuit was consolidated with the original one. Which was granted on motion of the defendant. Which was apparently made as a result of some comments by the plaintiffs or their attorneys to the jurors. 3 Thereafter. On Greer's own motion his retaliation claim was dismissed. The defendant sought to have the bond cover its anticipated appellate attorney's fees as well as the other costs it would incur as a result of the appeal. The motion was accompanied by affidavits estimating the amount of those attorney's fees. 000 of that amount was to cover the attorney's fees the defendant estimated it would incur in the appeal.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
His request was reduced by the district court by more than eighty percent. Five of the nine counts were dismissed on summary judgment in June 1993. Judgment was entered for Mr. Washington was the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Their motion was summarily denied by the district court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Is
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
This is a pro se appeal from the district court's judgments dismissing plaintiff appellant's amended complaints in two companion civil rights and employment discrimination actions. Was 56 years old when he graduated from the Massachusetts College of Pharmacy (the
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was hired by defendant at the age of nineteen. Anthony appeals the grant of summary judgment to BTR on his claims that BTR's refusal to promote him on four separate occasions was discriminatory based on his race and age.4 He also appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court four days before trial because by that time he had already expended money on witness per diem and service fees for the trial. Anthony argues that he was a long time faithful employee of BTR with a good work record. Anthony contends a jury should have been permitted to hear how this early experience in Anthony's employment
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The issue before us in this appeal is whether Canon 5 of the Minnesota Code of Judicial Conduct. Were narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest in maintaining the independence and impartiality of Minnesota's judiciary. Were not impermissibly vague. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that judges
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Counts 1 and 3 were tried to a jury in August 2001. Count 2 is not at issue in this appeal and was ultimately dismissed with prejudice on September 27. Facts McKesson is a wholesale distributor of pharmaceuticals. She was transferred to McKesson's distribution center in Romeoville. She was working two full time jobs. There was no job description that established a priority between the two positions. Moultry later was given a written warning for inappropriate behavior based on this incident. Testified at trial that Moultry was very upset when he was disciplined. The warning letter was not placed in Mr. It was kept in a separate file to which few employees had access. Her bid for this position was unsuccessful. The position was awarded ultimately to Hank Weinmaster. Who was then serving as the operations manager at a McKesson warehouse in Omaha. Handling truck delivery issues. 4 No. 04 3816 been promoted because she was having difficulty meeting performance standards in her position as transportation coordinator/computer room supervisor.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: 1. Was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor of the CNMI. The Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America was signed on February 15. Congress is given the power to pass laws affecting the CNMI by specifically naming the CNMI in any piece of legislation consistent with the Covenant. TENORIO 14587 The United States' authority over the CNMI is not. The CNMI is not under the plenary authority of the United States). The immigration exemption was originally inserted because the CNMI feared that large numbers of Asian immigrants would migrate to the CNMI under the United States' numerical quotas to take advantage of the CNMI's new affiliation with the United States. Citizens are given a general preference for all jobs. § 4413.1 Employers who wish to hire nonresident workers must first notify the CNMI Department of Labor. All section designations are to the NWA. TENORIO ten percent of his or her workforce is comprised of resident workers. § 4436(a).
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The primary question is whether the District Court erred in affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order. ]
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
That the EEOC's recognition of such a right violates the expressed will of Congress and the Tenth Amendment. The Board further argues that the EEOC erred in its determination that one of the Administrative Law Judge's (
|
|
99-1388 -- GUIDES V. YARMOUTH GROUP PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC. -- 07/02/2002
Our jurisdiction is pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With him on the brief were Theodore B. With her on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was Donald E. With him on the brief were Jeffrey G. Of counsel on the brief were Ronald L. With him on the brief were Martha B. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board has no authority to decide whether DoL should have waived the 60 day deadline. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. The board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his nonselection. Review was denied. Cir. 2006) (per curiam order). 05 3077 3 The order granting en banc review asked the parties to brief three issues: (1) Is the 15 day period for filing appeals to the Merit Systems Protection Board set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(d)(1)(B) subject to equitable tolling? (2) Is the 60 day period for filing a claim with the Secretary of Labor set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling? (3) Are all veterans who allege a USERRA violation entitled to a hearing under 5 U.S.C. § 7701?
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
He was in Cubic's employ for three months prior to becoming associated with Sprint PCS. Gagnon was directly supervised by Kathleen Wilder. Gagnon was promoted in October 1997 to CBT Manager. Wilder was out of the office on maternity leave and Jim Keenan. Vice President Jim Mendenhall was instrumental in promoting Gagnon to the manager position. We also note that there are two pending motions taken with the case. Appellant's Motion for Judicial Reassignment is denied. Appellant's Motion for Waiver of Costs is granted pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 4323(h). 2 1 Because Gagnon's position was new at Sprint PCS. It did not have a dollar figure assigned for compensation. The MRP is not a guaranteed salary point. When a salary increase greater than ten percent is sought. A Compensation Exception Request form stating the amount of the raise requested is completed. Mendenhall's rejection of the initial compensation request is an important part of Gagnon's claim of discrimination.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Was sued in his official capacity as the Secretary of the Department of Labor of the CNMI. TENORIO States of America was signed on February 15. Congress is given the power to pass laws affecting the CNMI by specifically naming the CNMI in any piece of legislation consistent with the Covenant. The United States' authority over the CNMI is not. The CNMI is not under the plenary authority of the United States). The immigration exemption was originally inserted because the CNMI feared that large numbers SAGANA v. Citizens are given a general preference for all jobs. § 4413.1 Employers who wish to hire nonresident workers must first notify the CNMI Department of Labor. The employer must also guarantee that at least ten percent of his or her workforce is comprised of resident workers. § 4436(a). Although the industries which employ the vast majority of temporary workers are exempted from standard minimum wage laws. §§ 4436(c). The employer is also responsible for providing for the medical expenses of any nonresident worker and for costs that may Unless otherwise indicated.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
With her on the brief were Kenneth L. That her discharge was the result of discrimination on the basis of race. That she was retaliated against for engaging in activities that were protected under Title VII. George has proffered evidence by which a reasonable jury could conclude that EPA's stated reasons for her discharge are a pretext for discrimination. The case will therefore be remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. BACKGROUND Diane George is a black woman originally from Trinidad and Tobago. She was hired by EPA on September 14. George was fired on March 26. Was George's team leader and had direct day to day supervisory 3 responsibility over George. Was not officially classified as a manager. Was the manager of record for both George and Brown. It was Kelly who officially hired and fired George. With the exception of George and an engineer who originally was from Great Britain. All of the employees were from the United States. George was the only probationary employee in the unit.
|
|
EDDY JAMES PETER V. COLONIAL LIFE INS
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
The District Court held that Wastak's suit was precluded by a valid release agreement. We will affirm. During which time Wastak believed that Lehigh Valley was satisfied with his performance. That his employment was secure. Who was fifty seven years old at the time. Kauffman indicated that the termination was a result of Wastak's conducting inappropriate lease negotiations. Wastak was given a proposed Separation Agreement and Release (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is amended as follows: Cover sheet. Powers were on brief for appellant. Sharton and Segal & Feinberg were on brief for appellee. Clarke was sexually harassed. Was barred for failure to exhaust mandatory administrative remedies before the Massachu setts Commission Against Discrimination (
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Were on brief.
|
|
COOPER HOUSTON V. SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE. PER CURIAM: IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION MARINA COOPER HOUSTON CONTENDS THAT SHE WAS FIRED FROM HER JOB AT SOUTHERN RAILWAY BECAUSE OF HER RACE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. IN 1983 SHE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE COMPANY'S INTERNAL POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A SPECIAL AGENT AND WORKED AT COMPANY HEADQUARTERS IN ATLANTA. COOPER HOUSTON WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE GEORGIA DIVISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WORKED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF R.L. AFTER HER TERMINATION SHE FILED THE INSTANT ACTION. THE CASE WAS TRIED BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE SITTING AS A SPECIAL MASTER. THE DISTRICT COURT NOTED THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED AS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE.[2] INSTEAD OF REMANDING THE CASE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPER LEGAL TEST. SHE HAD NOT PROVEN THAT SOUTHERN RAILWAY HAD FIRED HER BECAUSE OF HER RACE. BECAUSE THIS CASE WAS TRIED BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE SITTING AS A SPECIAL MASTER."> COOPER-HOUSTON V. SOUTHERN RY.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
COOPER HOUSTON V. SENIOR CIRCUIT JUDGE. PER CURIAM: IN THIS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION ACTION MARINA COOPER HOUSTON CONTENDS THAT SHE WAS FIRED FROM HER JOB AT SOUTHERN RAILWAY BECAUSE OF HER RACE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. IN 1983 SHE WAS ASSIGNED TO THE COMPANY'S INTERNAL POLICE DEPARTMENT AS A SPECIAL AGENT AND WORKED AT COMPANY HEADQUARTERS IN ATLANTA. COOPER HOUSTON WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE GEORGIA DIVISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WORKED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF R.L. AFTER HER TERMINATION SHE FILED THE INSTANT ACTION. THE CASE WAS TRIED BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE SITTING AS A SPECIAL MASTER. THE DISTRICT COURT NOTED THAT THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANALYZED AS A CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CASE.[2] INSTEAD OF REMANDING THE CASE FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE PROPER LEGAL TEST. SHE HAD NOT PROVEN THAT SOUTHERN RAILWAY HAD FIRED HER BECAUSE OF HER RACE. BECAUSE THIS CASE WAS TRIED BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE SITTING AS A SPECIAL MASTER."> COOPER-HOUSTON V. SOUTHERN RY.
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 >
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Which in this case was the plaintiff appellant crossappellee A. Sista was employed by defendant appellee cross appellant CDC Ixis North America. Sista was promoted by CDC at the behest of his direct supervisor. Nothing was done to address Sista's complaints. The telephone conversation was recorded because it related to CDC's trading desk. Though neither Sista nor Monaghan was aware of Mehta's presence. During a discussion of a transaction on which Mehta was working. Nathani asked him whether he had threatened Mehta or arranged
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. An order remanding a civil action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1441 and 1447(c) is not reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Allowed Conley's appeal to proceed to the extent he is challenging the district court's implicit determination that removal based on § 1443 was improper. The only question presently before us is whether the district court properly remanded Conley's action based on a finding that removal jurisdiction under § 1443 did not exist. 1 I. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. The facts are drawn from the allegations in Conley's removal petition. Which we assume are true for purposes of this appeal. ASU was able to obtain land from black property owners in Bel Aire at less than fair market value before instituting eminent domain proceedings. Who then had difficulty resettling because ASU's below market compensation for the land was inadequate to permit the black property owners to purchase real estate elsewhere.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Is corrected as follows: On page 21. P.A. were on brief. P.A. was on brief. Smith testified that she was considered to be a de facto manager who. Bond nonetheless honored Smith's request and assured her that her position was
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
We hold sufficient evidence of a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether the City's articulated nondiscriminatory reason for termination was a pretext from which racial bias can clearly be inferred. This judgment follows from the wellrecognized proposition that in summary judgment cases the nonmoving party is entitled to all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the record. F. & Will. The bulk of the evidence is testimony of two people the appellant and the supervisor along with internal investigations that were based in large part on the supervisor's characterization of disputed events. We explore the record in terms of whether the appellant's alleged insubordination is disputed and a jury could reasonably find the appellee's reason for termination was pretext for racial discrimination. Because appellant's retaliation and discrimination claim are factually intertwined. Our discussion of the record for each claim will overlap. The Program was to be staffed by a supervisor and four juvenile diversion specialists who would be located in various police precincts throughout the City to work with at risk youth as an alternative to the court system.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
1985 and 1988 and that the action was removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. An order remanding a civil action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 1441 and 1447(c) is not reviewable. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). Allowed Conley's appeal to proceed to the extent he is challenging the district court's implicit determination that removal based on § 1443 was improper. The only question presently before us is whether the district court properly remanded Conley's action based on a finding that removal jurisdiction under § 1443 did not exist. The facts are drawn from the allegations in Conley's removal petition. Which we assume are true for purposes of this appeal. 2 2 1 property owners.3 Then. Included among these landowners was Conley. Who is black. Was comprised of 103. Which was located behind its medical building. Was rejected. ASU was able to obtain land from black property owners in Bel Aire at less than fair market value before instituting eminent domain proceedings. Who then had difficulty resettling because ASU's below market compensation for the land was inadequate to permit the black property owners to purchase real estate elsewhere.
|
|
99-1364 -- CISNEROS V. ABC RAIL CORPORATION -- 07/07/2000
Circuit Judge.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Since Matthew Wood was disabled. Issues Several questions are presented to us on appeal: 1) Is complete preemption of a state claim that is subject to Section 510 of ERISA warranted even if the state claim prays for relief arguably not provided for in Section 502(a) of ERISA? 2. Have jurisdiction? The District Court read that claim as an assertion
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Concluding that the policy prohibited no more speech than was already unlawful under federal and state anti discrimination laws. Held that the policy is constitutional and enter ed judgment for the school district. The full text of the Policy is reproduced in the Appendix to this opinion. We will briefly review the most relevant portions here. Nurturing school environment
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Non discriminatory reason for terminating Williams was pretextual. The court also concluded that Tyco had offered sufficient evidence to show that Williams was not qualified for the position he sought. Employment policies that would have required it to
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Were on brief. Was on brief. At issue is whether the creation of a private cause of action against a state for money damages under the personal medical leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act. Our holding is narrow: the present legislative record does not demonstrate that the personal medical leave provision of the FMLA is an appropriate response necessary to remedy or prevent unconstitutional gender discrimination practiced by the states as employers.
|
|
OPINION/ORDER
Brought suit against Scott Paper Company claiming that he was a victim of unlawful racial discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Scott contends that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to establish that Woodson was terminated in retaliation for filing discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
|
|
SHAHAR V. BOWERS
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0143p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The plaintiffs are African American and Caucasian voters residing in Hamilton. (2) the use of error prone voting equipment deprives voters of their due process right to have their votes counted accurately. Some commentators have suggested that these types of voting rights challenges are taking us into a brave new world. Others suggest that they are simply variations of old challenges. Code § 3506.15.1 The Secretary has certified two general types of equipment: (1)
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D6C7C61545A5510988256F1500578B74/$file/0216532o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are denied. While she was working. The employer did not dig too deep into whether her papers were in order. Who were unauthorized aliens. Were not entitled to backpay as a remedy for violation of the NLRA because such remedy would
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may97/93-9345.op2.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. 90 L.Ed.2d 735 (1986) (plurality opinion) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDAzLTkzNDhfb3BuLnBkZg==/03-9348_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court ruled that plaintiff's inability to show defendants' awareness of her age relative to that of a younger worker to whom plaintiff's responsibilities were transferred precluded her establishment of a prima facie case of age 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 discrimination. Plaintiff was required to adduce some evidence indicating that. Defendants knew that plaintiff was significantly older than another employee to whom her duties were transferred. Various work functions common to both the acquired and acquiring companies were consolidated. Was among the persons so terminated. She submits that defendants' decision was impermissibly based on her age. Woodman was employed in various advertising sales positions by television stations affiliated with Chris Craft. She was named the station's Local Sales Manager. She was promoted to 1 2 3 1 Because Woodman's age discrimination claims under state and city law are subject to the same analysis as her ADEA claim. The position she held when she was terminated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0248p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was tried before a jury beginning on May 9. Numerous incidents of racial slurs such as having his supervisors profess to Plaintiff that he was a problem because of his race African American. Plaintiff claimed that he was demeaned and harassed by co workers without objection from supervisors. For example a Klu Klux Klan symbol and membership card solicitation were placed on Plaintiff's locker. Plaintiff was abruptly and inappropriately terminated for what Plaintiff characterized as minor and false reasons. Plaintiff claimed that the termination was actually in retaliation for his filing of the discrimination complaints. It was ruled Nos. 00 4316/4431 Hall v. Consolidated Freightways Nos. 00 4316/4431 that Plaintiff's termination was improper and he was ordered reinstated to his job. Plaintiff was issued his right to sue letter on September 22. As these are jury functions. A dismissal pursuant to Rule 50(a) is improper where the nonmovant presented sufficient evidence to raise a material issue of fact for the jury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200113864.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claimed that his rights under the First Amendment's Speech Clause were violated when Allred and Harland punished him for silently raising his fist during the daily flag salute instead of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the rest of his class. He further claims that his Establishment Clause rights were violated by Allred's daily
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971543.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. At trial Cooper's supervisor said that Cooper was fired due to poor job performance. Cooper offered evidence that the supervisor's claim was merely pretext for racial discrimination. On appeal Paychex argues that its post trial motions should have been granted because the court erred by: admitting evidence concerning the racial 2 bias of Cooper's former secretary. Paychex also contends that the court's grant of attorneys' fees was excessive and that the jury should not have been instructed on punitive damages. Cooper cross appeals the amount of fees he was granted. Cooper initially was hired as the Field Sales Manager (FSM) for Paychex's Washington district. Cooper was responsible for recruiting. Cooper was an excellent DSM. He was readily available to help sales representatives with technical or sales related questions. Certain Paychex sales representatives said that Cooper was the best DSM they had worked under during their careers at Paychex.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/993863.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are called upon to decide whether. The Supreme Court recently held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/05/98-1172.htm">98-1172 -- HOLMES V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO -- 05/07/1999<BR></A><BR>
Holmes is a sixty four year old African American woman hired by the University as an Associate Professor and Chairperson of the school's Communications Department in June 1992. Holmes' term as Chairperson of the Communications Department was short lived. The University removed her from the position based on complaints that: (1) she was not pursuing a course of development for the department the other faculty members agreed with. (2) she was not listening to input from other faculty members. (3) she was not performing the research and publication necessary to achieve tenure. (4) the department was suffering from significant internal strife under her leadership. Holmes asserts she was the victim of numerous instances of age and race discrimination throughout the time of her employment. <p> In August 1996. Holmes says she overheard and her own impression that the University was recommending her reappointment with the understanding she would retire before achieving tenure.</li> <li>A colleague's self deprecating comments about his own age.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr95/92-7005.opa.html">CROSS V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cross v. Including its retroactive application of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.<p> FACTS<p> <p> The Alabama State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is the agency responsible for maintaining and operating various mental health facilities throughout the state. Is one such facility within the Department. Taylor Hardin is a forensic facility which provides psychiatric services. Are past or present female employees at Taylor Hardin. Are as follows: the state of Alabama. Horsley was commissioner of the Department and responsible for about 7. Poundstone was Stricklin's immediate supervisor since 1988. Stricklin was the director at Taylor Hardin since Taylor Hardin first opened in 1981.<p> Testimony at Trial<p> <p> (1) Parties to the legal action<p> <p> <i>Dr. Kara Cross is a licensed clinical psychologist. She was director of intermediate care at Taylor Hardin from September 24. Cross testified that Stricklin's<p> manner of communications with other women was extremely hostile.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr95/92-7005.opa.html">CROSS V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Cross v. Including its retroactive application of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.<p> FACTS<p> <p> The Alabama State Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation is the agency responsible for maintaining and operating various mental health facilities throughout the state. Is one such facility within the Department. Taylor Hardin is a forensic facility which provides psychiatric services. Are past or present female employees at Taylor Hardin. Are as follows: the state of Alabama. Horsley was commissioner of the Department and responsible for about 7. Poundstone was Stricklin's immediate supervisor since 1988. Stricklin was the director at Taylor Hardin since Taylor Hardin first opened in 1981.<p> Testimony at Trial<p> <p> (1) Parties to the legal action<p> <p> <i>Dr. Kara Cross is a licensed clinical psychologist. She was director of intermediate care at Taylor Hardin from September 24. Cross testified that Stricklin's<p> manner of communications with other women was extremely hostile.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0680n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Michael White who was also African American hired Watson as a Project Coordinator in the City's Department of Personnel (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="580"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=04&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Oct2001/005225.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was hired as of January 29. Cardenas asserts that through 1989 every manager or supervisor in the ISD was a white non Hispanic male. Cardenas was appointed at the G 30 level. The claims raised in Cardenas' 128 paragraph complaint revolve around his contention that he was hired at a lower grade level than merited by the work he was assigned. Was not promoted as merited. Was the subject of retaliation. Was subject to a hostile work environment. Our review of the grant of summary judgment is plenary. 129 (3d Cir. 1991). 3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides for summary judgment when
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/D2D4CBF690CD61A6882571560001FEBD/$file/0457037.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellant in this action is a sophomore at Poway High School who was ordered not to wear a T shirt to school that read.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/11575F252DF695A588256FBA0006EA63/$file/0316849.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he was twice denied a promotion to the position of Production Resource Manager at the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard (hereinafter. Judgment was entered against Obrey. The Pearl Harbor Shipyard is one of four Navy shipyards operated by the Navy organizational unit. The applicants were rated in three categories. Obrey was 2612 OBREY v. The PRM position was subsequently offered to Ernest Chamberlain in the first round of hiring. Both of whom are Caucasian males and both of whom declined the offer. Recruitment was then cancelled. The Navy argues that the exclusion was proper but that. The error was harmless. We find that the district court's decision excluding this evidence was an abuse of discretion as to all. We further conclude that the error was not harmless. The hiring practice evidence at issue was compiled through discovery and included the hiring history of the Pearl Harbor Shipyard for the period 19992002. Dannemiller's report concludes that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=10&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/00opinions/00-5138a.html">FOGG, MATTHEW V. ASHCROFT, JOHN<BR></A><BR>
Costello argued the cause for appellant.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/unpub/03/03-11229.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021266A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Final line of text the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="ftp://opinions.ca5.uscourts.gov/byDate/Oct2004/Oct29/03-11229.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/002423.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Novant argues that the documents Virmani seeks to discover are privileged. Virmani is an obstetrician gynecologist who was granted medical staff membership and clinical privileges at Presbyterian Hospital and Presbyterian Hospital Matthews (collectively. Virmani states that this is a known possible complication of the procedure. Which is composed of three physicians. Using a committee comThe hospitals are non parties that are subsidiaries of Novant. Arguing that the peer review materials were privileged under North Carolina law. That the scope of Virmani's discovery requests was overly broad. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge McKnight. R. Evid. 501.3 Whether to recognize a privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501 is a mixed question of law and fact. Evidentiary privileges
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C03/03-11229.0.wpd.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. Meeks sent Anderson a letter explaining why she was referred for a fitness for duty evaluation. The physician conducting the examination would not release Anderson's records to the City or to the psychologist who was evaluating her. Was possible. pre termination hearing. Bruce Meeks sent Anderson a termination letter stating that she was being terminated for violating personnel rules. She was granted a grievance hearing. among others. Alleging that she was retaliated against and that the defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her race.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="578"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-1478.htm">96-1478 -- KARNES V. SCI COLORADO FUNERAL SERVICES INC. -- 12/17/1998<BR></A><BR>
2000e17.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-13527.man.html">BUTTS V. COUNTY OF VOLUSIA (8/14/2000, NO. 99-13527)<BR></A><BR>
§ 1981 stated:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5E964467A3D8845A88256C4B005410C5/$file/9935128.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: Appellants are the owners of a former Seattle nightclub known at one time as the Celebrity. In fact were racially motivated. They also contend that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad. Appellants have brought federal law claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983. 1985 and 1986 and have asserted a variety of state law claims. We hold that the district court correctly ruled that acts falling outside of the limitations period are time barred. We hold that appellants have alleged one discrete act occurring within the limitations period the decision by the City to withdraw its offer to settle its abatement action against appellants. The court should have considered the City's time barred acts against appellants. Because appellants have created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City discriminated on account of viewpoint or race. That appellants do not have standing to assert claims on behalf of their former patrons or to obtain declaratory relief and that appellants' claims under § 1986 are time barred.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1090.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Hardy Wood Tabor & Chudacoff was on brief. The House's head doorkeeper.1 The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of House Rule 45 a rule that purports to ban both lobbyists and lobbying from the floor of the House while the House is in session on its face and as applied. Among them was Rule 45 (the full text of which is reproduced in the appendix). Rule 45 banishes all lobbyists from the floor of the House (and the House lounge) while the House is in session. The rule permits members of the public to be on the House floor while the House is in session. The legislator plaintiffs have not appealed and. Government officials who lobby are given considerably more leeway. Are otherwise exempt from the Act's provisions. Neither elected officials nor other public employees are required to wear identification badges. The House provided two galleries overlooking the chamber which were accessible to all members of the public.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/98C7F538AA7B5F6388256EBE004D44B4/$file/0235727.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As this is an appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds largely of qualified immunity. We are asked to decide these weighty questions aided only by the skeletal at best factual picture sketched out in the complaint. 1 2 Pub. The federal courts may not dismiss a complaint unless
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/September2004/033488p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant. The lead plaintiff is Gail Watson Chiang (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1998/98a1868p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing Ford's complaint even though we differ with the district court by finding Ford eligible to file suit under Title I of the ADA. I. The facts concerning the plaintiff's employment and her disability are not in dispute. Ford was an employee of Schering from 1975 until May of 1992. When she became disabled by virtue of a mental disorder and was unable to continue her employment. The plan mandated that benefits cease after two years if the disabled employee was not hospitalized. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Our review over the district court's order is plenary. Because the facts of this case are not in dispute. Whether Ford is even eligible to sue under the ADA. We will address Ford's claims under Titles I and III seriatim. The defendants' group insurance plan is a fringe benefit of employment at Schering. We must first ascertain whether Ford is eligible tofile suit under Title I. The question of standing is not at issue in this case. Which is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033488p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an interlocutory appeal by the defendant. The lead plaintiff is Gail Watson Chiang (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=02">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-13527.man.html">BUTTS V. COUNTY OF VOLUSIA (8/14/2000, NO. 99-13527)<BR></A><BR>
§ 1981 stated:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3448A.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="576"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-3448.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nanda was employed as an assistant professor in the Department of Microbiology at the University's Chicago campus. Nanda's efforts to reverse the decision through the University's grievance process were unsuccessful. The individual defendants and the University moved to dismiss Count II on the ground that the named administrators were not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan96/94-7024.man.html">WHITE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. Are elected to office in at large partisan elections.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1998/98a1881p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. Nuveen is required to register with the NASD all employees who deal directly with the public in the purchase and sale of over the counter 2 securities. Approximately four months after she was hired. Seus was required to sign a Form U 4. Claim or controversy that may arise between me and my firm . . . that is required to be arbitrated under the rules. Conditions and covenants of the . . . by laws and rules and regulations of the [NASD] as they are and may be adopted. With the exception of disputes involving the insurance business of any member which is also an insurance company: (1) between or among members. Although the NASD Code in effect in 1982 did not explicitly state that employment disputes were subject to arbitration. The Code was amended in 1993 to do so. We will address. Whether there is a binding agreement to arbitrate between the parties and. Whether this dispute is within the scope of that agreement. We will then determine whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Seus's motion for discovery from the NASD.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1231.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Norval Williams was employed by the St. He was fired after he made a comment in the media questioning the guilt of an individual who had been convicted of killing a police officer. Was hired by then St. Williams' responsibilities was to oversee security for the St. An African American youth who was tried before an all white jury for the murder of a white South Bend police officer. At some time during the trial or after the verdict was returned. Williams commented to television and newspaper reporters that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=09&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0749n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Appellants are all employees of the State of Ohio and members of the Ohio Civil Service Employees Association (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0474p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He claims that he was wrongfully discharged from his position as a police officer for the Township. The injury was diagnosed as a herniated disc. Which was approved later that month. That he was suspended from active duty. Asserting that Young was no longer disabled as a result of a work related injury. He was subpoenaed on several occasions to provide court testimony about matters that he had witnessed before his injury. The last such subpoena in the record is dated in February of 1994. Young was maintained as an employee on the Township records. The Township's police officers are required to report such incidents. The magistrate judge determined that Young
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1880.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Lamond with whom McDonald & Associates was on brief for appellants. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law of the Boston Bar Association were on brief for intervenor. With whom Boston Police Department Legal Advisor's office was on brief for City of Boston. Was on brief for appellee. This is an appeal from the district court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Defendants City of Boston. The BPD believed that promoting Ruiz was necessary to avoid violating an amended 1980 federal court consent decree. That the promotion was narrowly tailored to meet that goal. Officers who pass the exam are placed on an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/93-1031.html">BERRY V. STEVINSON CHEVROLET<BR></A><BR>
Who are African Americans. The district court concluded that defendants were liable for back pay to Mr. Carter was originally employed at Toyota West. He was transferred to Mark Toyota in 1985 and discharged in July 1987. The district court found that the notice was mailed to Mr. Carter's action was time barred. Carter contends that the 1991 Civil Rights Act provision for a jury trial applies retroactively and that a jury should therefore have decided whether he filed his claim in a timely manner. Berry expressed his desire for a promotion and was qualified to receive one. Berry's promotion to sales manager would have created a new contract. Stevinson was not personally liable on Mr. Reynolds was new car sales manager at defendant Stevinson Toyota (Toyota West). Reynolds was employed as sales manager. Toyota West was notified that it had earned a sales bonus from Toyota Motor Sales. Both of whom were sales managers at Toyota West. Szekula that he was contemplating filing an EEOC race discrimination complaint against Toyota West.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="573"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan96/94-7024.man.html">WHITE V. ALABAMA<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>White v. Are elected to office in at large partisan elections.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1994/94a0698p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Class actions for age discrimination are authorized by section 7(b) of ADEA (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C.A. § 626(b)). Section 16(b) of FLSA is itself modified by the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 251 262 (West 1985)). Was expressly incorporated into ADEA until 1991. States an opt in class member's claim for relief under FLSA does not commence until the date the opt in member's written consent to join the representative action is filed. Was not expressly incorporated into ADEA. Sperling contends these 102 consents were timely filed because the named plaintiffs' filing of a complaint in a representative action under ADEA legally tolls the statute of limitations. The district court agreed and granted Sperling's motion to legally toll the statute for the 102 persons whose individual actions would have been barred. Involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0387p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because these claims are untimely under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court properly concluded that no genuine issues of fact remain and the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. I. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority is a public agency chartered by the State of Ohio and funded by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide subsidized housing for eligible citizens of Summit County. The position from which he was suspended on August 9. After which Singfield was escorted from the premises. Which included the following statement: This letter is to confirm our conversation earlier today. That you are being placed on a minimum thirty day unpaid suspension. You are also required to seek assistance for anger management. The reason for this suspension is due to an incident which occurred on August 8. You were sent home for the day. Your keys were found hanging from the lockbox. After examining the keys it was found that six of the keys were duplicated master keys.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200615969.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We hold that individuals are not amenable to private suit for violating the ADA's anti retaliation provision. Where the act or practice opposed by the plaintiff is made unlawful by the ADA provisions concerning employment. We also hold that individuals are not amenable to private suit for violating § 760.50(3)(b) of the FOAA. Myriam was served by a non party to the lawsuit. Service was executed to Wayne in his personal capacity. Myriam and Wayne filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted on the ground that claims against individual defendants are not cognizable under either the ADA or the FOAA. Service was executed to Troy on October 4th. Albra argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint because (1) Advan was properly served. Advan has moved for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 on the ground that Albra's appeal is frivolous. Service of Advan Albra argues that service to Advan was proper because he mailed a copy of the summons to Advan's registered agent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="571"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/09A4D16644F713028825727C0057465C/$file/0535170.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 of the punitive damages were allocated to Oregon's Criminal Injuries Com ENGQUIST v. Contending that the constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. Contending that a jury verdict from a coworker's similar trial in state court should have been given preclusive effect. Or that it should have been admitted into evidence. We have jurisdiction over the appeal and cross appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We hold that Engquist's constitutional claims are invalid as a matter of law. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Engquist was hired in 1992 as an international food standards specialist for the Export Service Center (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR>
Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/10/97-1381.htm">97-1381 -- DAVOLL V. WEBB -- 10/25/1999<BR></A><BR>
The remaining ADA claims were tried to a jury. Escobedo are all former Denver police officers who were injured in the line of duty and forced to retire due to Denver's policy forbidding disabled police officers from transferring into other vacant positions in the city government. Most of these employees are enrolled in one of two personnel systems: the Classified Service. Which is composed of police officers and firefighters. 500 of which are for full time employment. The Career Service system was set up by a charter which the voters of Denver approved. Candidates that do so are then tested. If the request is granted. There is also a list for those Career Services employees who meet the qualifications and wish to be promoted to the vacant position. Classified Service employees are not permitted to transfer into the Career Service. Must have an oral interview. Police officers that are separated under honorable circumstances may be reemployed without competing with the general applicant pool. <p> According to the city.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/feb99/96-4577.ma2.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH (2/11/1999, NO. 96-4577)<BR></A><BR>
The first is whether women are a protected class for 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) purposes. So that a sex based conspiracy against women is actionable under that provision. We hold that they are and it is. At least where they involve state action.</P> <P> The second issue concerns the test applicable for deciding whether the employees of two employers are to be aggregated for determining if the minimum number of employees exist for Title VII coverage. In which the employers are always private entities. Is not applicable to those Title VII cases in which the employers are state and local government entities. One which presumes public entities that are separate under state law will not be aggregated for Title VII purposes. By showing either: 1) that the state's purpose for separating the entities under state law was to evade Title VII. Or 2) that the entities are so closely related with respect to the fundamental aspects of employment relationships that the presumption in favor of the state law's denomination is clearly outweighed.</P> <P> Applying that test to the public entity that employed the plaintiff in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="569"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2000/97-8838.ma3.html">CHAPMAN V. AI TRANSP. (10/2/2000, NO. 97-8838)<BR></A><BR>
Chapman's ADA claims were tried before a jury. Those issues have to do with an employer's ability to select its own criteria for making employment decisions and with the permissibility of using subjective criteria. As we will explain in due course. It turns out that general corporate credibility issue is not presented by the record. While we have the case. We will also use it to decide whether a district court may consider a losing party's financial status in awarding costs to the prevailing party.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/01/09/003980P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As there was probable cause for his arrest and his detention was reasonable. Summary judgment was inappropriate on his malicious prosecution and falseimprisonment claims. The store employee checked the canister Youngblood placed back on the shelf and discovered that most of the beef jerky inside was missing. The store employee opened the canister Youngblood had purchased and observed that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/02/00-1145.htm">00-1145 -- CONCRETE WORKS OF COLORADO INC. V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 02/10/2003<BR></A><BR>
Denver has amended the ordinance twice since this lawsuit was initiated but it remains essentially unchanged for purposes of this case. <p> In 1993. A bench trial was held and the district court entered judgment in favor of CWC on its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. <em>See Concrete Works of Colorado. CWC's entitlement to damages was reserved and the district court directed entry of judgment under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. <em>See</em> <em>id</em>. at 1044. Anecdotal evidence which are discussed respectively in subsections IV.A. <a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/04/052803P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Phillips Modern Ag Company is owned and operated by Scott Phillips. Whose wife Lori is also involved with the company. Tenge was an at will employee. Scott said that he was always satisfied with her work performance and that she never failed to perform an assigned task. Lori began to believe that Scott and Tenge were involved in a romantic relationship. She grew concerned that Tenge was attempting to seduce Scott. Tenge and her husband were at a bar with Lori. They were at a concert with their spouses. That was just a quick instant.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200603/04-5448a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Anderson were on brief. Were on brief. 2 Glen D. Conrad were on brief for amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America. A related appeal challenging the district court's denial of class certification to women farmers was heard the same day as this appeal. The members of which are selected locally and are located in over 2. The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) was combined with other Department entities to form the FSA. All references are to the FSA. The appellants alleged that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/08/96-4155.htm">96-4155 -- GUNNELL V. UTAH VALLEY STATE COLLEGE -- 08/19/1998<BR></A><BR>
Claiming that she was subjected to sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that she was denied a medical leave of absence in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0390p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was notified by letter from SunDance dated February 26. 1999 that the company was compelled to reduce its workforce and that Salsbury's job would be terminated effective March 1. Neither Salsbury nor any other similarly situated employee was otherwise entitled to any amount of severance pay. Company will. Failure of the Releasor to comply with this agreement will result in the immediate repayment by Releasor of the total severance amount to Company as outlined in this paragraph. The parties acknowledge and agree that this severance pay exceeds any and all pay to which Releasor may have been entitled from the Company pursuant to law. . . . 3. Includes but is not limited to any claims which Releasor may have or may assert under federal or state law prohibiting employment discrimination and claims growing out of any legal restrictions on the rights of Company to terminate its employees. Releasor on behalf of herself and other releasors expressly agrees that she will not institute. Miscellaneous: The terms of this General Release are contractual and not mere recitals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="567"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/011648A.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was the victim of severe or pervasive sex based harassment in her workplace at Scollon Productions. Because there is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct95/92-6988.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STEWART<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Their three contentions are: that the district court improperly upheld the government's <i>Batson v. That they were convicted based upon their beliefs and their association with the Ku Klux Klan. Who are both black. They were some of the first blacks to live in that area. The young Ruffin girls were among the first black children to attend the local public school in the nearby community of Douglas.<p> The presence of the Ruffins in the virtually all white community agitated the membership of the Alabama Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2223.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the Santa Ana Pueblo Tribal Court ruled that the Pueblo and the named tribal officials were entitled to sovereign immunity. The district court ruled that the tribal court's decision was entitled to preclusive effect and dismissed the Burrells' case. We hold that the district should not have given preclusive effect or otherwise recognized the tribal court's ruling. They were (1) The following facts are taken from the Burrells' complaint. The Pueblo's consent to the lease was necessary. Was required to contact the United States Department of Interior to initiate such proceedings. <hr> informed that if they conducted a successful farming operation. Were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/mar99/99-11145.opn.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//mar99/99-11145.opn.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/99-11145.man.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/june96/95-2191.wpd.html">OLGUIN V. LUCERO<BR></A><BR>
Mora are members of the Isleta Tribe residing on tribal lands. Appellees are former and current members of the Isleta Tribal Council. Was evicted from the reservation by order of the Tribal Council. Appellants were served with a temporary restraining order that was issued on Ms. Olguin was suspended without pay from her employment with the Tribal Police for fifteen days. Olguin's appeals of the suspension were denied by tribal authorities. Mora
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct95/92-6988.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. STEWART<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. Their three contentions are: that the district court improperly upheld the government's <i>Batson v. That they were convicted based upon their beliefs and their association with the Ku Klux Klan. Who are both black. They were some of the first blacks to live in that area. The young Ruffin girls were among the first black children to attend the local public school in the nearby community of Douglas.<p> The presence of the Ruffins in the virtually all white community agitated the membership of the Alabama Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/99-11145.man.html">WILSON V. MINOR (8/4/2000, NO. 99-11145)<BR></A><BR>
The district court found that the 1988 injunction changed the size of the County Commission and was therefore an impermissible remedy for a voting rights violation in light of recent Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent. Because the law prohibiting changes in the size of a governing body in order to remedy a section 2 violation is plain. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the 1988 injunction and affirm its order.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-2328.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Hankins</U> and <U>Bingham Dana LLP</U> were on brief. P.A.</U> were on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="565"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/09/02-2184.htm">02-2184 -- MARSHALL V. COLUMBIA LEA REGIONAL HOSPITAL -- 09/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
We are not in a position to judge the truth of those allegations at this early stage in the litigation. Marshall alleges that the traffic stop and arrest were made on account of his race and without probable cause. The defendants are Officer Porter. Plaintiff contends that Hobbs police chief Tony Knott and the City of Hobbs are liable for those actions under supervisory and municipal liability theories respectively. We will refer to these parties collectively as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1998/98a1945p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will review a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Appellant is an orthopedic surgeon who. Which is a private. Which is defined as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19939345.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge: The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.1 The court affirms the summary judgment for the Attorney General on Shahar's free expression and equal protection claims for reasons set out by Judges Kravitch and Morgan in their separate opinions. Shahar's claim of violation of substantive due process is not substantially presented on appeal. Worked as a law clerk in the Department of Law during the summer of 1990. clerkship she told other clerks that she was a lesbian. Then that issue would have to be addressed. 1 Shahar was working.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-1505_014.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Compensatory damages were awarded against all defendants and punitive damages were awarded against each of the individual defendants. Facts The plaintiffs in this action are seventeen police officers who. Defendant Arthur Jones was the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department. The governing statute required that he select candidates
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug96/95-8533.opa.html">GONZALES V. GARNER FOOD SERVS.<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Gonzales v. This motion was denied. BACKGROUND<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/021465.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that she was demoted from the position of assistant principal to teacher because she spoke out against race discrimination (her free speech claims) and because of her race (her discrimination claims). We conclude that Love Lane has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was demoted in retaliation for her speech. We also conclude that Martin is not entitled. I. Love Lane is employed by the Winston Salem/Forsyth County Board of Education. From 1988 until 1998 she was an assistant principal at four middle and elementary schools. She was told that her strongest skills were in the areas of communication and problem solving. Where Martin said
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0092a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Paul is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church located within the Catholic Diocese of Toledo. Father Willman is responsible for all religious matters within the parish. She was awarded a full time eighth grade teaching position for the 1994 1995 school year. Cline's employment was governed by the standard St. 2) a statement that the signer will
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="562"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-2443.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. P.A.</SPAN> were on brief. Alleges that he was the object of both racial discrimination and slander during and after a shopping trip to a Radio Shack store. He was the only African American on the premises. Three employees all of whom were white monitored his movements. A clerk told the appellant that the scanner he wished to buy was not in stock. Some batteries that were to his liking. 000 was missing. Richard told him that all the customers who were in the store during the same time frame had been reported as suspects in the theft. This statement was patently false. We examine each count separately.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/c883ccb34dcecfb888256e5a00707d5d/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-3030.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the brief were Peter D. Of counsel was John H. Oja was removed from his position as Chief of the Regulatory Branch of the Construction and Operations division for the Anchorage District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Oja's appeal was a so called
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-7012a.html">GARY CORAMAE ELLA V. LONG, EDWARD<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C883CCB34DCECFB888256E5A00707D5D/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/063093P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Seeking to have a tribal judgment of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court of Appeals declared null and void. The bank now argues that the tribal courts lacked jurisdiction over the Longs' discrimination claim and that it was denied due process by the tribal proceedings. I. The Long Company is a family farming and ranching business incorporated under the laws of South Dakota and located on the Cheyenne River Sioux Indian Reservation. Who are both enrolled members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe (Tribe). Who was not a tribal member. The parties disagree about whether his shares were distributed to Ronnie Long. 2 but it is undisputed that the Longs have majority ownership of the company. In his will Kenneth purported to devise his interest in the company and his land on the reservation to his four children. Noting that it has filed a creditor's claim against the estate and asserting that Kenneth's interest in the company was never distributed by the probate court. The estate was still in probate at the time of the district court judgement. 22 1 The bank is a South Dakota corporation with its principal place of business outside the reservation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1661.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C. were on brief. P.A. were on brief. He alleged that he was discharged from his position as Vice President of Finance because he was male. Reasoning that it was included under the statutory cap. Was inappropriate under the circumstances of the case. Our review of the record reveals that this was a case with much to say on either side. It was in our minds an exceptionally hard fought trial. While the verdict could have gone either way. Our review persuades us that no error was committed below such as to justify reversal. The plaintiff finally is given the opportunity to convince the trier of fact that the justification was pretextual and that the real reason was discriminatory.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-2117.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ea50059bc5df2783882569520074e699/32ceecd24573adbd88256b12005f31ee/$FILE/0015132.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32CEECD24573ADBD88256B12005F31EE/$file/0015132.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While others were unable to represent themselves adequately at such proceedings. (4) the plaintiff class was improperly certified and is not entitled to system wide relief. The Board argues that plaintiffs have no due process right to a parole hearing. We have jurisdiction to hear this interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. I. BACKGROUND The instant action was brought by a class of prisoners and parolees suffering from six categories of disability: mobility impairments. The divisions have different areas of responsibility regarding prisoners and parolees. Litigation against the two divisions was bifurcated and proceeded on two separate tracks. A. Parties The named plaintiffs are prisoners sentenced under California Penal Code § 1168 to life with the possibility of parole who complain that the Board failed to provide them with adequate accommodations at a variety of parole hearings. Parolees who complain about the lack of accommodations during the parole revocation process.1 The defendants in the part of the case now on appeal are Gray Davis.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="560"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1510p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court rejected Long's argument that the release was invalid because it failed to meet specific and detailed requirements of the OWBPA. Was ratified when Long accepted and retained severance benefits paid to him following execution of the release. Because we are convinced that the ratification doctrine should not apply to a waiver of age discrimination claims which is invalid under the OWBPA and that Long should not be required to tender back severance benefits before proceeding with his age discrimination claims. We find that the grant of summary judgment with respect to these claims was inappropriate. We will. We will remand the non ADEA claims for further consideration. Are undisputed. Who was born in 1936. From the early 1980s Long was employed in Sears' Home Improvement Products and Services Division (HIPS). Although his primary responsibility was to sell roofing. Long's job performance was excellent and his earnings. Were in the neighborhood of $100. Sears analyzed the HIPS division's economic performance and concluded that reorganization was warranted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept99/97-3458.man.html">WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged.</P> <P> The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1363.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellants. Were on brief for appellee. We reverse in part and vacate and remand in part the district court's declaration that the releases at issue are enforceable. An employee was required to sign a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0334a-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a consolidated case. The Heiser Plaintiffs are individuals who live or have lived in or near Oak Ridge. Who allegedly have cancer or have an increased risk of acquiring cancer or other diseases. The Ball Plaintiffs are African Americans who live or have lived in a community known as Scarboro in Oak Ridge. Plaintiffs claim that they have been harmed through exposure to radioactive and other toxic substances over the period when nuclear weapons were manufactured in Oak Ridge. Defendants are private contractors of the United States government that operate or have operated nuclear weapons manufacturing and research facilities in the Oak Ridge Reservation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=12&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="558"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept99/97-3458.man.html">WRIGHT V. SOUTHLAND CORP. (9/3/1999, NO. 97-3458)<BR></A><BR>
We conclude that direct evidence of employment discrimination is evidence from which a trier of fact could conclude. That an adverse employment action was taken against the plaintiff on the basis of a protected personal characteristic. Wright was the manager of a 7 11 convenience store in Kissimmee. At which time he was discharged.</P> <P> The Southland Corporation owner of the 7 11 chain asserts that it fired Wright because of continuing merchandise control problems. Wright argues that he was discharged in retaliation for his filing of a claim of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/01/03-1162.htm">03-1162 -- SOSKIN V. REINERTSON -- 01/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/03/01-3245.htm">01-3245 -- HARMS V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE -- 03/04/2003<BR></A><BR>
Alleging he was wrongfully suspended and terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-1185.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Timmerman was terminated from her position as branch manager at U.S. A position in which she was <hr> responsible for managing (with co worker Chad Royle) several bank branches and supervising the branch managers at those locations. Was re titled. Timmerman and her male co worker were demoted to the position of branch manager. Bank was terminated. Timmerman was fifty two years old. Claims instead that she was not aware the refunds were made in contravention of company policy. That she was only looking out for the financial interests of her co employees. Bank sought and was granted leave to assert state law counterclaims against Ms. Timmerman sought and was granted leave to amend her complaint to add claims for retaliation under Title VII and the ADEA. Bank's asserted legitimate reason for her termination is pretextual. Timmerman additional pages of briefing is best characterized as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="556"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-1473.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bates was on brief for the Ellenwoods. Was on brief for the State of Maine. McGill were on brief for Exxon Shipping Company. Was removed from his position as chief engineer of another Exxon oil tanker. Relying primarily on the company's previous written policy that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/3AD0D408876FCB2488256CCB0051639D/$file/0115565.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on the brief. 2002 is hereby ordered amended as follows: Slip Op. at 11465: Replace the counsel listings with the following:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/05/033457P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Al Zubaidy claims he was discharged and harassed based on his race. Al Zubaidy also asserts he was subjected to unlawful retaliation. BACKGROUND Al Zubaidy is a male Shiite Muslim of Iraqi descent serving a prison sentence for first degree assault. TEK is a private corporation with a manufacturing facility in Fremont. Who are not inmates or Penitentiary employees. Prison guards are present at all times in TEK's workplace. Unger is TEK's Production Manager at the facility located at the Penitentiary. AlZubaidy's direct supervisor was Unger. Al Zubaidy acknowledges TEK's work space at the Penitentiary is loud. Al Zubaidy jokingly told another employee TEK was going to serve
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0252p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Vickers was employed as a private police officer by Fairfield Medical Center in Lancaster. Kory Dixon and John Mueller were also police officers at FMC and often worked with Vickers. Steve Anderson was Police Chief of FMC's police department and was Vickers' supervisor. Vickers' seventy one page complaint is extremely detailed. Alleging that Vickers was `gay' or homosexual. Vickers contends that he was subject to daily instances of harassment at the hands of his coworkers from May 2002 through March 2003. Playing tape recorded conversations in the office during which Vickers was ridiculed for being homosexual. He was physically harassed by his co workers. Vickers and Mueller were conducting handcuff training. It was removed from his mailbox. Vickers further contends that the picture was hanging up in a window at FMC on January 15. Vickers considered reporting the harassment he was experiencing to FMC's Vice President or President but asserts that Anderson confronted Vickers before he reported the harassment.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/9207DDDAECF6B3DC88256C70005C50CF/$file/0115544.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Chief Judge: Debtor Norman Majewski incurred large medical expenses at the hospital where he was employed. Now contends that the firing violated the bankruptcy code provision barring termination of an individual who
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200106/00-5138a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief was Scott M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. Attorney at the time the brief was filed. Ralston were on the brief for amicus curiae NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. As to those its verdict was purely advisory. Here Fogg's lead argument is that the district court misin terpreted the 1991 Civil Rights Act's compensatory damages cap. While he was serving in the fugitive detail in the federal district court here. Fogg claims that both the reprimand and the transfer were the result of unlawful race discrimination and that the Marshals Service unlawfully delayed the processing of his administrative complaint. In 1989 Fogg was assigned to a position on the Metropoli tan Area Task Force. (5) inquir ing about his EEO activities while he was on the job in 1993. Fogg also claims that he was subjected to a hostile work environment during the entire period at issue. 000) is for the largest size of employer. (He does not state how many claims he deems the lawsuit to have aggregated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-1407.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
(1) we have wended our way through the procedural maze presented by the arguments. As will be evident. We will discuss the myriad arguments presented. Even if his filing deadline is equitably tolled to accommodate his error (it appears to have been a good faith error). We conclude dismissal was warranted but. Douglas was promoted to a GS 13. His position was transferred to the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Douglas is a member of the National Federation of Federal Employees and (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. We have jurisdiction over this appeal because the dismissal disposed of the entire case. 1275 (10th Cir. 2001) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1994/94a0878p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of Oshiver's complaint. On the ground that Oshiver's claims were time barred. We will affirm the district court's dismissal of Oshiver's discriminatory failure to hire claim. Was instead hired as an hourly attorney. Having been informed that there were no salaried positions available at that time. When she was hired. She was also advised by the firm that she would be considered for an associate position if and when an opening occurred. Oshiver was dismissed with the explanation that the firm did not have sufficient work to sustain her position as an hourly employee at that time. Oshiver filed administrative complaints with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="553"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/01/01-4030.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is subdivided into numbered districts and subdistricts. A majority of Chicago land available for development is zoned R. Churches are permitted uses as of right in all R zones. Are termed Variations in the Nature of Special Uses (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/77DCF4F385244CAE88257114005B1893/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2005 is amended as follows: 1. 2. Footnote six is deleted in its entirety. The first sentence of Part I (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/06-3281.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Martha B. Of counsel was Joyce G. Also of counsel were David M. II A We generally have jurisdiction over appeals from the MSPB under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(9). We do have jurisdiction over appeals raising only timeliness issues of such cases. Parties proceeding with a mixed case appeal to the MSPB have thirty days from 2006 3281 4 the Board's final decision to petition the EEOC for consideration or to file a civil action in the district court. 5 C.F.R. § 1201.157. It stated that her option was to either appeal to the EEOC's OFO or file in a district court. Rather than that her option under applicable regulations was to appeal to the MSPB or file in a district court. 2004 that her two options were to appeal to the EEOC's OFO or to file an action in district court. She should have known enough to ignore that notice and hearken back to the MSPB administrative judge's notice two years earlier. Is arbitrary.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200501/03-5120a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Kenneth L. That the case is not ripe. We hold that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over Battle's complaint because the termination of the neutral arbitrator's services was not a final order of the FAA Administrator concerning
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun2000/981842.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The statutes governing Breyer's claim to citizenship are S 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874 and a 1994 amendment to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/65378EE06236E19B882573410049E736/$file/0435876.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Which is part of the Kent School District.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/05/952381P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Background Phillips was diagnosed in 1985 with carpal tunnel syndrome resulting from repetitive work performed in his employment with Ford. corrective surgery in 1986. work for Ford. Benson also opined that the injury was work related. his diagnosis and recommendation in writing to Ford. on medical leave. Ford refused to pay for the treatment on grounds that the injury was not work related. Phillips was released to perform light duty work. period of March 1993 to August 1993. denial of workers' The surgery was partially covered by Phillips' personal medical insurance carrier. Ford refused to pay workers' compensation temporary total disability benefits for the interim Phillips applied to have Ford's 2 compensation benefits reviewed by an administrative law judge of the division of workers' compensation (the Division). Which is within the department of labor and industrial relations of the state of Missouri.2 See Mo. The following documents were filed with the district court: Ford's motion to dismiss. Ford filed
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F912654A654769BD882570DF007BCE38/$file/0435187.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude that diversity jurisdiction is proper and that Kroske's age discrimination claim under the WLAD was not preempted. Is a federally chartered National Banking Association that was formed in accordance with the National Bank Act. The Bank is governed by a board of directors. Which is empowered by the Bank's bylaws to elect and discharge officers. Kroske was notified that her branch was not meeting the Bank's goals and quotas for business activity. Although Kroske contends that her branch was the smallest in the area with the fewest employees. That she was short staffed. The other branch managers in the region were in their twenties and thirties. While Kroske was fifty one years old. Kroske contended that she was replaced by an employee who was in his mid twenties and possessed less experience than Kroske. Filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Kroske's state discrimination claim was preempted by the National Bank Act. Contending that she was not an officer under § 24(Fifth) and.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="551"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1046.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1994 is amended as follows: The cover page should read:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-3326.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. <hr> a plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ADEA. (2) a plaintiff's exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under the ADEA. When he was fifty six years old. Or otherwise failed to cooperate to the extent that it was not possible to resolve [his] charge.'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2721.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Were on brief. All public elementary schools are run by the Commonwealth's Department of Education. 2002 is described below.</P> <P> On August 14. He was twelve years old at the time and did not know how to read.</P> <P> In the summer before Joshua started second grade. Requested a certified sign language interpreter to assist Joshua in the classroom.<STRONG> </STRONG>Joshua's mother is a special education teacher. The administrative judge found that Joshua's need for a certified sign language interpreter was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=97">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2EA12EAE1E7DD7C488256D1600736A46/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn and the attached opinion is ORDERED filed. The full court was advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED. The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may98/96-7080.man.html">ANDREWS V. LAKESHORE REHABILITATION HOSP. (5/15/1998, NO. 96-7080)<BR></A><BR>
LSSI's parent company was ReLife. The Complaint was filed on December 21. LSSI was leasing and operating the Defendant Hospital as LSSI's business.</P> <P> The Defendant Hospital's Answer. States that it is filed by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/034433p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1 an association of law Joining FAIR in its preliminary injunction motion and in this appeal are: the Society for Law Teachers. We hold that FAIR has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its First Amendment claims and that it is entitled to preliminary injunctive relief. Background Facts 2 and Procedural Posture Law Schools' Nondiscrimination Policies Law schools have long maintained formal policies of nondiscrimination that withhold career placement services from employers who exclude employees and applicants based on such factors as race. The facts on appeal are not in dispute. Supp. 2d at 277. 7 2 virtually every law school now has a comprehensive policy like the following: [The] School of Law is committed to a policy of equal opportunity for all students and graduates. A servicemember is separated from the military if it is found that he or she
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/99a0429p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
A jury school's decision was made] religious beliefs. . . . A decision b community in a jury trial is ap 995 F. 672 (Ohio 1994) (holding that federal caselaw interpreting and applying Title VII is generally applicable to cases involving Chapter 4112). This is no different for discrimination claims brought against sectarian schools. For the same reasons that Cline is entitled to pursue her federal discrimination claim before a trier of fact. She is equally entitled to press on with her claim under Ohio's Civil Rights Act. E. We agree with the district court that Cline's contract claims are meritless. The contract itself was for a one year term. Its terms were fulfilled. Although Cline generally alleged that she was unsuccessful in finding work immediately after she was informed of her nonrenewal. Or that she was injured by that reliance. Paul is a parish of the Roman Catholic Church located within the Catholic Diocese of Toledo. Father Willman is Willman
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=03-2415.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1489.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. This is another in a series LYNCH. Plaintiffs are government employees who are members of the losing Popular Democratic Party (PDP) who assert that they were terminated or demoted from their jobs because of their political affiliation.1 This court faced an earlier wave of such cases when PDP candidates won election in 1984 and NPP members complained that their government jobs suffered because of their party membership. The PDP affiliated plaintiffs are six long term government employees who were demoted from their civil service positions as Managerial Coordinators in the Commonwealth's Department of Social Services. They say their duties are now being performed by NPP members who have been designated as aides to the Regional Directors of the agency. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on the theory that plaintiffs had not made out a prima facie case and that defendants had established they would have taken action anyway for non political reasons. Because we believe there are material facts in dispute.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/02/02-1536.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court granted Abbott's motion to dismiss on the ground that at will employees cannot maintain claims under § 1981. We find that at will employment relationships are sufficiently contractual to support claims of racial discrimination in promotion and pay under § 1981. Was filed on June 25. No claims of disparate treatment under Title VII were raised. The court struck the plaintiffs Title VII class allegations because the proposed class was overly broad and because plaintiffs failed to plead facts sufficient to describe the qualified population in the relevant labor market. Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed on May 21. No allegations were made No. 02 1536 3 based on a Title VII disparate treatment theory. Which was denied. Fields was voluntarily dismissed from the suit. Walker is the only named plaintiff in this action who chose to appeal. The only issue that Walker now raises is whether the district court erred in its March 2. 1999 decision to dismiss his individual § 1981 claim based on Walker's status as an at will employee.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200006/99-7165a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Gary A.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may98/96-7080.man.html">ANDREWS V. LAKESHORE REHABILITATION HOSP. (5/15/1998, NO. 96-7080)<BR></A><BR>
LSSI's parent company was ReLife. The Complaint was filed on December 21. LSSI was leasing and operating the Defendant Hospital as LSSI's business.</P> <P> The Defendant Hospital's Answer. States that it is filed by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2078.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief for plaintiff appellant. Tye LLP</SPAN> were on brief for defendants appellees. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=98">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="549"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1326.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sample was on brief for appellant. The question before us is whether the decision of the Penobscot Nation Tribal Council to terminate the employment of a community health nurse constitutes an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Dec1997/97a1757p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the orders granting summary judgment and denying the motion for reconsideration and will dismiss the cross appeal. Kralik alleged in her complaint that she is an individual with a disability employed as a toll collector by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission. Durbin is Executive Director of the 2 Commission so as a matter of convenience and reality we will refer to him as the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1727.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
P.C.</SPAN> was on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0CFE7744A3DD584188256C7D00041477/$file/9936086.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The action was brought in 1998 by a class of approximately 15. P. 23(a) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/0F50E0EF54EE664988256CC5005B2985/$file/0057099.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is withdrawn. An opinion will be filed replacing it. Asserting that the District Court (1) erred by finding that actual damages were not released by the consent decree. (4) erred by determining that the consent decree was fair. We determine that the certification of a mandatory class was violative of the class member's due process rights and that the consent decree was inadequate and fundamentally unfair. 200 gas stations and mini markets in the State of California.1 Each is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1996/96a1337p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal questions we must decide are whether county prosecutors in New Jersey act as state or county officials when they make personnel decisions and whether the district court properly exercised in personam jurisdiction. We will reverse the May 4. We will affirm the district court's denial of Kaye's motion. We will remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Barbara Coleman was employed as an investigator at the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office during John Kaye's tenure as Monmouth County Prosecutor. It is uncontested that he possessed the final authority to determine who worked for the Monmouth County Prosecutor and in what capacity. She was not promoted to either position. Coleman's applications to be promoted to sergeant were denied in both June and October of 1990. A male investigator was promoted over Coleman. The County of Monmouth was not named separately as a defendant. The summons and complaint were served upon Kaye. The case was sent to the jury. (3) Kaye and/or one or more of his subordinates who made recommendations to him intentionally discriminated against Coleman because she was a woman.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec95/93-9345.opa.html">SHAHAR V. BOWERS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Shahar v. Senior Circuit Judge:<p> <p> The appellant Robin Joy Shahar is a homosexual female who was offered employment with the Department of Law of the State of Georgia to begin at a future date. The district court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.<p> The court unanimously agrees to affirm the conclusion of the district court that Shahar's right of intimate association was burdened. That the district court erred in applying a balancing test to determine whether Shahar's rights under the Constitution were violated and that the case must be remanded to the district court for it to consider these issues under a strict scrutiny standard.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="547"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/97/08/963210P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Magill was an active judge at the time this case was submitted and assumed senior status on April 1. Before the opinion was filed. United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. 3 3 was informed that when [the Panel] needed to select a replacement for Edwin Ailts. [the Panel] should advertise the position in a publication of national circulation to reach all persons who might be interested so [the Panel] could have an open. I assumed at that time that he was referring to the Chief Probation Officer position which would be vacated upon my retirement since I had only recently indicated my intention to retire and I was unaware of any other vacant positions. This was a brief conversation with Judge Wolle and the comment was made by him in passing. Ailts that the Administrative Office was recommending an aggressive effort on the part of the COURT to recruit minorities and females as candidates for the Chief Probation Officer position which was becoming vacant. A biweekly publication of the Probation Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts that was circulated nationwide to all probation officers.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-2428.man.html">DONATO V. AT&T (7/23/1998, NO. 97-2428)<BR></A><BR>
For marital status discrimination in employment practices where the employee allegedly was discharged in retaliation for the actions of his spouse. We have studied the question and conclude that this case presents an important issue of Florida law that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court. To frame this issue for the Court's review we offer the following.</P> <P> This case is brought by Rosario Donato. Alleging that he was the victim of marital status discrimination when AT&. The Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to support Mrs. She was discharged from her position with AT&. T and was told that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/967091.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Published opinion issued 6/24/99 is vacated. This case was originally before the Court on appeal from a grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees. The Court expressly declined to rule on the issue of whether application of the ADA to state prisons is a constitutional exercise of Congress' legislative power. These claims are no longer before the Court and will not be addressed further. 2 Although the issue of the constitutionality of applying the ADA and Rehabilitation Act to state prisons was not raised below. We exercise our limited discretion to consider the issue on appeal in light of the fact that the constitutionality of this federal statute is purely a question of law. Both parties have fully briefed the issue. Its resolution at this stage will advance and expedite the progress of this litigation. 488 U.S. 880 (1988) (when resolution of issue not presented below will
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/08/02-4162.htm">02-4162 -- SUAREZ V. UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLE -- 08/29/2003<BR></A><BR>
Is a Utah state prisoner appealing the district court's dismissal of his complaint. (3) the Governor and the Utah State Legislature have conspired to deny Suarez's due process rights by failing to properly oversee the Board's operation and correct the unconstitutional procedures. Which requires a court to dismiss any claims in a complaint filed <u>in forma pauperis</u> that are frivolous. Suarez contends that it was error for the district court to dismiss these claims. Suarez was sentenced to prison for a first degree felony.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200210/02-5021a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. With him on the brief were Suzette M. John Dossett were on the brief for amici curiae in support of respondents. Although this issue is both unsettled and fundamental factors that may justify interlocutory review pursuant to Rule 23(f) we nevertheless deny the petition because the critical questions required to resolve it are entirely unbriefed and because we are satisfied that the issue will not escape appel late review. Farmers believing that their applications have been denied on the basis of race can file complaints either directly with the FSA or with the Depart ment. Since
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-2428.man.html">DONATO V. AT&T (7/23/1998, NO. 97-2428)<BR></A><BR>
For marital status discrimination in employment practices where the employee allegedly was discharged in retaliation for the actions of his spouse. We have studied the question and conclude that this case presents an important issue of Florida law that has not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida. We believe the issue is appropriate for resolution by Florida's highest court. To frame this issue for the Court's review we offer the following.</P> <P> This case is brought by Rosario Donato. Alleging that he was the victim of marital status discrimination when AT&. The Florida Commission on Human Relations concluded that there was reasonable cause to support Mrs. She was discharged from her position with AT&. T and was told that she was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0079n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
An amended complaint was filed on August 10. Boyd were dismissed with prejudice. A second amended complaint was filed. A third amended complaint was filed. This was the final complaint filed. It was filed by all the plaintiffs to the original complaint. All of whom are AfricanAmerican. A jury trial was conducted. Arguments were heard on this motion. A ruling was issued from the bench by the district court. The appeal of Plaintiff Johnson was dismissed by this Court for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Before final judgments have been entered as to all parties in the action). A final order was entered. Substantive Facts Plaintiff Johnson was hired by Defendant. Plaintiff Johnson sought but was denied promotions into management positions. Factual details are provided in the sections analyzing the claims. Was violated. This issue (stated in the complaint) is waived. The prohibitions on discrimination in the Tennessee Human Rights Act are generally coterminous with those under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0229p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is a consolidated case. The Heiser Plaintiffs are individuals who live or have lived in or near Oak Ridge. Who allegedly have cancer or have an increased risk of acquiring cancer or other diseases. The Ball Plaintiffs are African Americans who live or have lived in a community known as Scarboro in Oak Ridge. Plaintiffs claim that they have been harmed through exposure to radioactive and other toxic substances over the period when nuclear weapons were manufactured in Oak Ridge. Defendants are private contractors of the United States government that operate or have operated nuclear weapons manufacturing and research facilities in the Oak Ridge Reservation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/02opinions/02-5021a.html">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Argued the cause for petitioner.<span style=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C740557C88F27A1888256D3A00540B8C/$file/9956762.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on the briefs. Were on the briefs. Were on the brief. Were on the brief for cross appellees Jack Lawn. Were on the brief for amici curiae International Human Rights Organizations and International Law Scholars. That Alvarez
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971509.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that he was improperly terminated in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="544"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0932p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review the March 9. Because the record reflects a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether J & H's asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for discharging Sempier are pretextual. We will reverse the summary judgment entered in favor of J & H. Sempier avers that no one advised him that his performance was less than satisfactory nor did anyone bring to his attention any deficiencies in his performance of his functions. The firm's chairman who was Sempier's friend and had been instrumental in Sempier being elected as CFO. States that he was generally pleased with Sempier's work. Johnson sought to have Sempier replaced. When Sempier was elected. Sempier was unanimously reelected to the Board in 1989. Who is fourteen years younger than Sempier. Who is four years younger than Sempier. J & H had instituted an early retirement program to retire
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0796p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Which was paid. We hold that the district court should have exercised its discretion to abstain. We will vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. We asked the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing the question of whether the district court properly should have abstained from entertaining the plaintiffs' claims under the abstention doctrine announced by the Supreme Court in Younger v. Appeals from the traffic court's decisions were heard by the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. A parking ticket is affixed to the vehicle. The owner of the ticketed vehicle is sent a notice by first class mail. The person to whom the ticket is issued has fifteen days to answer it. A failure to answer or to pay the fine will result in a Bureau of Administrative Adjudication (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTA0MjYtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-0426-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is automatically substituted for former Secretary Thomas Ridge as the respondent in this case. 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 RICHARD MERRITT. Who is of Puerto Rican ethnicity. Fernandez's Medical Leave of Absence and Return to Work Fernandez was injured on August 5. Fernandez was examined by several doctors who evaluated his ability to return to work. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Who also concluded that Fernandez was capable of returning to active duty employment without any restrictions. Fernandez was examined by Dr. Stiler opined that Fernandez was considered to have a partial disability and approved his return to work on restricted duty only. He was advised. That no light duty existed for the canine unit and that he was required to provide the Department with a physician's note indicating that he was able to return to full duty. Stiler confirmed that Fernandez was unable to return to full duty employment due to his disc herniation and that his work restrictions should be considered permanent.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="542"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/09/061156P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Twymon was initially supervised by Laura Gillund. Whose office was in Minneapolis. Twymon alleges racial animus and retaliation were the real reasons for her termination. An employee informed Cerwick that Twymon was using her work computer to assist a co worker with his master's thesis As in many employment discrimination cases. There are a number of factual disputes. Wells Fargo's computer policy states that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042550p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Citizens allege that the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov97/96-4577.opa.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lyes v. Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1453.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. That there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to have found that they violated Davis's constitutional rights. That they are entitled to qualified immunity. He was involuntarily committed to Westborough State Hospital (Westborough) for periods during 1991 and 1992. He was committed to Westborough for a third time on May 12. Davis testified that he told Dexter that he was unhappy because no one had visited him on his birthday two days earlier. Who is Davis's key witness. Davis and Dexter were loud and boisterous as they rode the elevator up to Hennessey 2A. Wiegers had not received notice from Chauncy Hall that Davis and Dexter were coming. Wiegers was responsible for 37 patients and several staff. About half of whom were outside on a picnic. </FONT></P> <P><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/A771388D86A2FF1F882572CD0059DD37/$file/0515266.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Whose efforts have collided with the City of San Francisco's prerogative under its noise ordinance and permitting scheme to ensure that its citizens are not subject to unreasonably loud speech and music. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Appellants claim that city officials implemented a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/03/09/021673P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Oti Kaga is a non profit corporation established by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal government pursuant to the United States Housing Act of 1937. Oti Kaga's purpose is to acquire. SDHDA is an independent public instrumentality exercising essential public functions under S.D. SDHDA is responsible for. Thomas Schramm and Leland Kleinsasser are members of SDHDA's Board of Commissioners. Appellee Darlys Baum is SDHDA's Executive Director. Baum and the board members were sued individually and in their official capacities. Is authorized by IRC § 42. State housing agencies are responsible for allocating tax credits for the construction of low income housing. The annual plan must be prepared by the state's housing agency and approved by the governmental unit of which the agency is a part. SDHDA is the authorized housing agency for South Dakota. The second program at issue is the HOME Program. Indian tribes were participating jurisdictions in the HOME Program. 42 U.S.C. § 12747(a)(2). Indian housing assistance was funded directly through Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/04/06/033166P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who was the senior female in marketing and the only female among the three Business Segment Directors (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-1597.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Smith & Lancaster were on brief for Charissa McKinnon and Beatrice Poulin. Plaintiff McKinnon further alleged that they subjected her to additional discrimination because she was pregnant while employed at Kwong Wah. McKinnon testified that one of the restaurant owners tried to force her to sign a release exempting the Kwong Wah from liability if she was injured on the job. The plaintiffs alleged that they were constructively discharged in July 1992. Kwong Wah's Answer was due on August 18. One week after the answer was due. Holding that Title VII's charging requirements were nonjurisdictional. 112 (1st Cir. 1990) (motions to set aside default judgments are left to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov97/96-4577.opa.html">LYES V. CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Lyes v. Ann.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="540"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0028p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Tuttle's Employment with Metro Plaintiff Patricia Burlin Tuttle (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0436p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Harper's employment was transferred from AutoAlliance to AAI Employee Services Co. The conditions and terms of his employment were governed by the collective bargaining agreement (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/ABD6A99B4FC2C05C88256DF00000F5D7/$file/0235399.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The issue in this case is: what showing of pretext must a plaintiff in a retaliation suit make in order to overcome a defendant's motion for summary judgment. She was unable to demonstrate that Marathon's nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her were a pretext for retaliation. Stegall alleges that she was fired from KORD. Facts Lynda Stegall was employed by Citadel Broadcasting Company (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May2001/994032.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
He was not hired for the position. Which was filled by a white male with no prior on the job police experience. We will reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand both claims to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. FACTS The facts underlying the instant dispute have not been developed in detail. Given the early stage at which the matter was resolved in the District Court. Bur gh's complaint is the only pleading in the recor d and no discovery has been taken. Clifford Township is located appr oximately 25 miles from Burgh's home in South Montrose. Burgh alleges that he was more qualified than the person hired and that the department failed to hir e him because of his race. S 955(a).1 The PHRA claim was filed within 180 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice. The state administrative complaint was therefor e timely. The federal claim was accepted and docketed by the EEOC on Mar ch 20. This claim was filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory employment practice and it too was timely.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="538"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E5127BFB9AC6CBC288256E1200826E11/$file/0235399.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
2003 is modified to read as follows: Although Marathon objects to Peterson's deposition testimony on the grounds that it is inadmissible hearsay. As follows:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june95/93-3380.opa.html">WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. The branch was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/04/97-3291.htm">97-3291 -- BUTLER V. CITY OF PRAIRIE VILLAGE KANSAS -- 04/06/1999<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant City of Prairie Village. All of the individual defendants were employed by. Was the Mayor. Vernon was the City Administrator. Defendant Carol Pendelton was a member of the city council and chair of the Policy and Services Committee. Robnett was the director of the Public Works Department. <p> During his employment with the City. Plaintiff's employment was terminated on January 27. Salary range of the new position were similar to those of Plaintiff's former position. <p> In this appeal. Plaintiff claims that the district court should not have entered summary judgment in favor of Defendants on his claims that he was terminated in violation of the First Amendment. He argues that summary judgment was improper on his ADA claim of discrimination because he has raised genuine issues of material fact. Two incidents occurred which Plaintiff claims are relevant to this dispute. Plaintiff's testimony was not favorable to the City and. I understand that is the case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/021047p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The gravamen of Cochran's complaint is that while an inmate at two penal institutions of the State. The Court was very specific in limiting its holding to cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts. Indicating that an individual analysis would have to be performed for subsequent The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 because Cochran brought a claim under the ADA. We are persuaded that a different scenario is present here. To determine when Eleventh Amendment Immunity will permit suits for money damages against state agencies. Lane is not applicable to these facts. We will affirm the judgment of the district court. Is a legally blind inmate currently incarcerated in South Woods in Bridgeton. Cochran is serving a life sentence for murder and robbery. Cochran was transferred from the Florida prison system to the custody of the New Jersey DOC. He was suffering from end stage glaucoma and was legally blind. Cochran was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B6258F20B32C1A8D88256C4C007B2E71/$file/0055343.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
England is substituted for his predecessor John H. We affirm the district court's ruling that appellants' prelimitations period claims are time barred. With regard to appellants' properly presented failure to promote claims arising out of incidents occurring before and after their charges were filed. BACKGROUND Appellants are all African American. During which employees from the Engineering Department were reassigned to the Production Department. They were removed to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june95/93-3380.opa.html">WALKER V. NATIONSBANK OF FL<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Walker v. The branch was given an overall rating of unsatisfactory.<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0154p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The public policy claim was sent to the jury. Defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on the public policy claim and the District Court granted the renewed motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he was an at will employee. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gary Kusens was employed by Defendant Pascal Company. When his position was eliminated. Plaintiff was 54 years old. His base salary increased and his commissions were determined as a fixed percentage of nationwide Pascal sales. Two of the people responsible for the elimination of Plaintiff's position were Defendant Benjamin Paschall. Pascal's Vice President of Sales and Marketing who was also Plaintiff's direct supervisor. Plaintiff was the oldest of the four Regional Sales Managers at Pascal. Who was terminated the same day as Plaintiff. Was the second oldest. The youngest two Sales Managers were retained. Plaintiff filed suit contending that he was fired because of his age and not because of Pascal's financial strategy.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/32DF76ED079F126488256FDC0083C086/$file/0315745.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming she was fired in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-2190.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Boardman</SPAN> were on brief. Plaintiff Angel David Morales Vallellanes (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="535"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-6300.htm">98-6300 -- SIMS V. HALLIBURTON CO. -- 07/14/1999<BR></A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. <p> Defendant Halliburton Co. hired plaintiff Larry Don Sims. Contending he was terminated in retaliation for reporting violations of environmental law and because of his age. Halliburton challenged Sims' retaliation claim on the ground that it alleged he was discharged for making internal reports of federal law violations. Which is not sufficient to establish a violation of Oklahoma public policy. Our task is to achieve the same result in federal court that would have been reached in state court had the state claims been pursued there. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter v. While we are not bound by the rulings of the lower Oklahoma courts. We will generally follow them absent compelling reasons not to. <u>See</u> <u>Perlmutter</u>.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-2050.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief for appellant. Was on brief for appellee. He alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race. The following facts are treated as undisputed for purposes of the motion for summary judgment. DeNovellis is a white male of Italian descent. He was sixty six years old at the time he filed this action in 1994. Which was part of HHS. DeNovellis's position was eliminated in an agency reorganization that occurred in the spring of 1991. Was the Regional Administrator (RA) of HDS. Williams was a black male of the age of fifty five when this action was filed. There were racial tensions in the office. There were also ethnic and race related comments around the office that Williams condoned. Why don't you have your people (Mafia) in the North End take care of them.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/042622p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Slagle was employed as a correctional officer at the Clarion County Jail (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/94opinions/94-5273a.html">WILSON HERBERT K. V. PENA, FEDERICO F.<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/CFB41C638909CB8F88256D5C0063E355/$file/9935684.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We have received a response and conclude that MALABED v. I The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. Where there is more than one Native American applicant who meets the minimum qualifications for a position. A Native American is a person belonging to an Indian tribe as defined in 25 U.S.C. North Slope Borough Code § 2.20.150(A)(27).1 Plaintiffs/Appellees are not Native Americans and claim that they were denied employment with the Borough because of the Ordinance. Robert Malabed is an Asian American of Filipino descent. The Ordinance was amended to create a preference not only for qualified Native Americans. Appellees Malabed and Emerson were denied employment under the original ordinance. Appellee Welch was denied employment under the amended ordinance. These differences between the amended ordinance and the original ordinance are not material to our analysis. 1 9102 MALABED v. NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH nent employment was rejected in 1998. He was replaced by a Native American.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2279.html">99A2279 -- IDIAMARCO V. RUNYON<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p>We are asked to review the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service. Iadimarco filed an action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act alleging
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Sep1999/99a2279.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We are asked to review the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service. Iadimarco filed an action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act alleging
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045a.htm">99-1045A -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/09/971143P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That he was subjected to employment discrimination based on his gender. I. This case has its genesis in what is known as the Rajender consent decree. The settlement therein was entered into in 1980 by the University and a class of women academic employees at the University to settle a gender discrimination class action lawsuit that began in the 1970s. Although Maitland was not a party to the decree. He was permitted to express his objections to it. To class members all of whom were women. Was permitted to file a claim to seek a salary increase under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="533"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/36E30382FA43D72488256D65007EC833/$file/0035457.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Allege that they were subject to a racially hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Is not the employer of Washington's Law Against Discrimination tracks federal law. Thus our analysis will cite only federal law. PMA is a non profit association of the stevedoring and shipping companies that do employ the Plaintiffs. Holding that PMA could not be liable for discrimination because PMA was not the Plaintiffs' employer. I A The Plaintiffs are all African American. They allege that they were subjected to a racially hostile work environment while employed on the waterfront in Seattle and Tacoma. The Plaintiffs allege that they have been referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-1155.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Nevares</U> was on brief. PSC</U> was on brief. <U>Chief Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=11&date=01&year=96">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/5D977ACC79EDB86D882570F2007C9238/$file/0415625.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Construction financing was secured through a commitment from the Federal National Mortgage Association that included the Wellington Place project along with three other AHDC enterprises.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/May1997/97a1575p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2483.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Ledbetter were on brief. Ltd. were on brief. Physical skills are a passport to college admissions and scholarships. Are invaluable in attaining career and life successes in and out of professional sports. The highway of opportunity runs in both directions. 1The individual defendants are. Each is sued in his official capacity. We discuss this appeal as if Brown was the sole defendant and appellant. Offering students the opportunity to partake of sports that are not financially self sustaining. Brown will never be confused with Notre Dame or the more muscular members of the Big Ten. Women are a relatively inconspicuous part of the storied athletic past. Respectively. 3 The absence of women's athletics at Brown was. Brown promptly upgraded Pembroke's rather primitive athletic offerings so that by 1977 there were fourteen women's varsity teams. Was in a financial bind. Many schools with varsity squads are reluctant to compete against club teams. 441 U.S. at 687 n.8 (holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to a Title IX suit).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0133p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
File Name: 00a0133p.06 raised the matters repeatedly in public fora (although the court noted that Chappel's private speech was also protected). His
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="531"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/March2003/013638.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the decision of the District Court. I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review We have jurisdiction over a final order of the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. The decision to deny a Motion for Reconsideration is within the discretion of the District Court.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/09/97-1076.htm">97-1076 -- DRAKE V. COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY -- 09/08/1998<BR></A><BR>
Judgment and affirm.<strong></strong> <p align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0252p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Congress's passage of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/99/06/981721P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claiming that the findings and award are not supported by the record. The State of Arkansas and ADE make only one argument: that because Congress does not have the power under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to pass legislation such as the IDEA. The purported abrogation of states' Eleventh Amendment immunity in § 1403 of that Act is ineffectual and therefore the state and the ADE are not proper parties to the suit. Was amended as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975. The stated purpose of the Act is to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them . . . a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs. To assure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents or guardians are protected. The chief mechanism for instituting the congressional purpose is the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0317p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Claim that they were denied promotions to the rank of sergeant on account of their race and gender. Alleging that they were discriminated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2003/10/02-3410.htm">02-3410 -- CHAFFIN V. KANSAS STATE FAIR BOARD -- 10/28/2003<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge. <p> <hr align=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/96-7239b.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were John M. With him on the brief were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Arthur B. Farris was on the brief for amicus curiae Home School Legal Defense Association. Holding that it violates the fundamental rights of minors and their parents and is unconstitutionally vague. Rehearing en banc was granted. Determining that juvenile crime and victimization in the District was a serious prob lem and growing worse unanimously adopted the Juvenile Curfew Act of 1995. The curfew contains eight
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992349.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
000 was entered against only one of the defendants Jill Mullineaux. Mullineaux contends that she was entitled to qualified immunity. We conclude that Mullineaux was not entitled to qualified immunity. We find that the award of damages was excessive. Knussman learned that his wife Kimberly was pregnant. Kim's pregnancy was difficult and ultimately resulted in her confinement to bed rest in the latter stages prior to delivery. Knussman was informed by the MSP Director of Flight Operations. That there was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1169b.html">ALLI COMMTY MEDIA V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="529"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2004/033285p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Parents or guardians of those students who have declined to join in the recitation or salute the flag. § 7 771(c)(1). We hold that the parental notification provision of the Act violates the school students' First Amendment right to free speech and is therefore unconstitutional. We will therefore affirm the District Court's judgment. The supervising officer of a school subject to the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h is subsection shall provide written notification to the parents or guardian of any student who declines to recite the P ledge of Allegiance or who refrains from saluting the flag. (2) This subsection shall not apply to any private or parochial school for which the display of the flag. The recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the salute of t h e flag violates the religious conv iction on which the school is based. § 7 771(c). Schools were not required to have a flag in every classroom and recite the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem every day: This bill would require [that every school day is started with the Pledge or national anth em.].
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.MA3.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. Which is with the words of the statutory provision.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op/00/00-4026.PDF">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Peters was employed by Renaissance as a Loss Prevention Officer (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/95opinions/95-5026a.html">BROWN JAMES E. V. SECY ARMY<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-1045.htm">99-1045 -- THOMPSON V. STATE OF COLORADO -- 08/07/2001<BR></A><BR>
Colorado argued that Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because Colorado is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The special license plates are supplied to the disabled at the same cost as standard license plates. <em>See id.</em>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19988899.OP2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. I. BACKGROUND The factual and legal background of this case is set forth in some detail in the panel opinion. We will not repeat it at length here. All eleven of them were confined in the prison when the lawsuit was filed. Which is the part that concerns this issue. The lawsuit was filed on March 10. Judgment was entered on June 24. The six plaintiffs who were released from confinement during that interval are Danny Chadwick. 190 F.3d at 1283.The other five plaintiffs were still confined when judgment was entered in the district court but. Some of them have been released since then. All eleven of the plaintiffs are jointly represented in this appeal. Their counsel does not argue that any of those who were released after the date of the district court's judgment are. Our references hereafter to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=96-1024.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
1997 is corrected as follows: On cover sheet. With whom Gary Broida was on brief. Was on brief for appellees. Knowing Rodriguez had threatened to kill Soto and her family if Soto went to the police to have him jailed for his spousal abuse. Because we find that the defendant officers are protected by qualified immunity on that claim. Rodriguez and Soto had two children: Sally was born in 1983. The abuse was apparent to family and friends.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june2000/98-8899.ma3.html">HARRIS V. GARNER (6/27/2000, NO. 98-8899)<BR></A><BR>
We granted rehearing en banc in this case to decide whether the provision applies to lawsuits that are filed while the plaintiff is a confined prisoner but which are not decided until after he is released from confinement. BACKGROUND</STRONG></CENTER> </SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/31F0472AE8A769E588257013007DAC1B/$file/0235971nographic.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Appellants filed lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking damages for the constitutional rights that were alleged to be violated by the emergency order. Four of the Appellants also filed individual claims in which they alleged that their constitutional rights were infringed by Seattle police officers in the course of the conference. We determine that the emergency order was a constitutional time. We also determine that there are genuine issues of material fact whether the emergency order was constitutional as applied to certain Appellants. Emily Maloney were also named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. They are not parties to this appeal. 1 5952 MENOTTI v. CITY OF SEATTLE All persons who were arrested by the City of Seattle and its police agents or its affiliated police agents on December 1 and 2. Pursuant to the defendants'
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="526"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI5MTItY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2912-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is exempt from liquidated damages. (c) Gregory Warren's liability was premised solely on the New York Human Rights Law. To the extent the judgment is at all ambiguous in appearing to award damages against all defendants. The error is easily corrected. Background At issue in this case are the circumstances in 1998 99 under which plaintiffs Keith Cross. Contended at trial that their demotions were based on race and age. The jury found that plaintiffs' demotions were discriminatory. We are obliged to review the trial evidence in some detail. After the last qualified Maintainer candidate on the civil service eligibility list was hired. Warren agreed to send notices to all Helpers asking them to indicate in writing whether they were interested in provisional appointments as Maintainers. Cross and Francis were not only the oldest but also the two most senior Helpers in the communications 4 maintenance department. The Plaintiffs' Inferior Training Cross and Francis were apparently not trained together with other new Maintainer hires.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6A9AA31F4AAD1F6888256AEF005A9B4A/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although much of what happened here was characterized as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/05/96-6087.htm">96-6087 -- BEAIRD V. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, INC. -- 05/28/1998<BR></A><BR>
More than 200 employees at Seagate's Oklahoma City facility were laid off. Some of the plaintiffs in this case had more than twenty years seniority when they were let go. They argue that it was reversible error to allow Seagate to submit a reply brief with additional materials after plaintiffs had responded to Seagate's original summary judgment motion. They contend that questions of material fact remain with respect to each plaintiff and that summary judgment was thus improper. <p> <center><strong>I</strong></center> <p> In 1993.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F8B414C76D42798E88256E5A00707D26/$file/9936147.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Although much of what happened here was characterized as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8407B7C60D0F634D88256C2F005AB250/$file/9935490.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Prince's club was recognized only as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1349.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
LLP</SPAN> were on brief for appellee Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewers Authority.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E50237D3832C332B88256F62005DA2A8/$file/0272515.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is a derivative applicant whose petition depends MANSOUR v. Mansour and Ewada (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-1359a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Frank W. Assistant Attorney General at the time the briefs were filed. With her on the brief was Grant Crandall. We nevertheless conclude that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under the collateral order doctrine. The Secretary determines that the provi sions of this subsection have been violated. Determines that the provisions of this subsection have not been violated. The complainant shall have the right ... to file an action in his own behalf before the Commission. If the charges are sustained. Their complaints would have to be in writing and hand delivered. The two claims were assigned to an Adminis trative Law Judge (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1526p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who filed a Title VII action alleging that he was fired from the Navy in retaliation for his previous charges of racial discrimination. These complaints were consolidated and. Robinson's request for reconsideration was denied and the EEO issued a letter on May 4. Robinson was absent from his job without authorization for a long period beginning on November 27. He was instructed on January 5. 1990 to contact his employee relation specialist to explain the reasons for his prolonged absence and was told that his failure to do so by January 12. Robinson brought this suit in district court claiming that he was fired in retaliation for the previous charges of racial discrimination. Among the evidence relevant to the district court's ultimate ruling was Robinson's testimony that he talked to an EEO counselor over the telephone. Who he thought was Shirley Brown. Who told him that he did not have to file a complaint. He did not have to file another separate complaint. Six months after he was terminated. Brown and Pusch both testified that they would never have advised a complainant not to file a complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2003/022056p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We must determine whether the State Defendants are entitled to constitutional immunity from plaintiff A.W.'s claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The District Court correctly held that the State Defendants have waived any immunity from these claims by the acceptance of the federal financial assistance. We therefore will affirm. The defendants knew or should have known of his medical condition. He was a nineteen year old high school student when he commenced this action. A request was filed in December 1997 with the NJDOE on behalf of A.W. and other Jersey City students with dyslexia. The NJDOE is a recipient of financial assistance under the IDEA and other federal programs. The district was ordered to undertake corrective action regarding its reading curricula. He allegedly is making progress in reading. This amended complaint contained ten counts and sought such relief as the entry of a judgment declaring that A.W.'s rights were violated and both compensatory and punitive damages. Were allegedly liable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringing his rights under the IDEA and section 504 by conducting an allegedly ineffective complaint investigation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="524"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200213348.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. BACKGROUND Miller is a paraplegic. Miller is housed in disciplinary isolation in the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/98/01/962802P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Deneen did not prove unlawful discrimination and that her claims are precluded The Honorable David S. A reasonable jury could have found the following facts. She was pregnant at that time with an expected delivery date in July. Deneen was surprised that anyone at NWA would even know whether or not Mrs. Deneen discovered that no time card was prepared for her and her name had been crossed off the work list with a notation by Mark Horvath. That she was on a medical leave of absence. Deneen about her medical condition they were acting on an assumption that she had a pregnancy related complication that would not allow her to perform her job functions.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/57B72CCC0B4522B588256E440001C9C1/$file/0135032o.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc is denied. Dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc: This is a dark day for the Voting Rights Act. The court should have taken this case en banc and brought order back into our caselaw. Plaintiffs' case is based entirely on statistical disparities: They claim that disparities in the felony conviction rates of certain minority groups in relation to their presence in the general population lead to a disparity in the rate of disenfranchisement under Washington's felon disenfranchisement law. They argue that these disparities alone prove that under the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-3421_028.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
While he was enrolled at Franklin Middle School in Champaign. He was repeatedly molested by the school's Dean of Students. That Champaign Community Schools Unit District No. 4 and various school officials were deliberately indifferent to the abuse. Because it was relevant to his claim for compensatory damages. We conclude the Does are entitled to a new trial for three reasons. I. BACKGROUND John Doe first enrolled at Franklin Middle School in 1993 as a sixth grader.1 The parties do not dispute that Doe was 1 John Doe and the other putative victims are all African Americans. Smith is Caucasian. Underprivileged African American boys because they were particularly vulnerable and less likely (continued...). No. 04 3421 3 a troubled child whose classroom conduct was disruptive at times. Smith would often seek out Doe on the playground and order him to Smith's office because he was a troublemaker.2 At trial. Smith invited Doe to have breakfast with him. Was the beginning of the molestation. Sexual grooming is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//nov99/98-4626.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF MIAMI (11/17/1999, NO. 98-4626)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This appeal is the latest chapter in a lengthy litigation saga over a 1977 nondiscrimination consent decree between the United States of America. As if each of these officers actually would have received one of the two promotions in 1992.</P> <P> On appeal. The sole issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in fashioning broad
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/96/01/951092P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Shannon was an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200708/06-5053a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the briefs was Sandra Mazliah. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. Who is African American. The Bureau said it selected Batchelder because she was more qualified than Jackson. Because Batchelder's score was much higher than all the other candidates. The Bureau explained that it hired Batchelder because she was better qualified. Stating that Jackson failed to show he was significantly more qualified and that it was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=94-1621.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is corrected as follows: Cover page. Charnas & Birmingham were on brief. Were on brief. Labor unions have historically SELYA. It is. Inasmuch as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200014340.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse Honorable Harlington Wood. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.1 All three Plaintiffs had recently been denied admission to UGA. Therefore were. Johnson was offered admission to UGA after filing this lawsuit. They alleged that UGA's use of gender violated Equal Protection and Title IX.2 Named as Defendants were the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0358n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This case concerns whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss after the defendants have pled the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. Plaintiff Appellant Walt Ruffin is an African American who operates an accounting and consulting business as Ruffin and Co. Ruffin first alleges that he should have been awarded the grant that TDOT ultimately awarded to TSU. TSU was to provide support services to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992168.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Inc. offered employees who were to lose their jobs a severance and benefits package in exchange for releases of claims that they might have in connection with their employment or the plant's closing. 14 employees now claim that the releases they signed are void due to the releases' failure to conform with both federal statutory requirements for a release of claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA0LTI2MDUtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/04-2605-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Defendants' principal argument is that the jury's verdict is unsupported by sufficient evidence. She In was promoted to the Chief Clerk position in the Office of Consumer Protection (Consumer Protection) where she remained until she was laid off on June 30. Consumer Protection was part of a department managed by Frank McGovern during the latter portion of Gronowski's employment there. Gronowski was responsible for coordinating the issuance and monitoring of nine City licenses. Spencer was running for By 1997 mayor. A position to which he was elected that fall. McGovern called her to his office and warned her about her involvement with the Democratic Party:
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/04/99-1452.htm">99-1452 -- ENGLISH V. COLORADO DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS -- 04/26/2001<BR></A><BR>
We hold that he failed to put forth sufficient evidence to show that the DOC's proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual. BACKGROUND</center> </strong> <p> English was employed for approximately fourteen years as a guard within the DOC. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement requiring the DOC to compensate the plaintiffs and to engage in certain institutional reforms. <p> English was fired by the DOC in September 1995. Would have handled the case. <p> Smith and Fucles interviewed Bowen and collected samples of the law library carpet which. That he told her he was waiting for Bowen. The DPD found that fluids taken from the carpet were consistent with English and with Bowen. Which was conducted by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. Suggested that Bowen withheld information when answering two questions about whether her accusations against English were truthful. English alleges that this information was never disclosed to DRDC Superintendent Mark McGoff (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov99/98-4626.man.html">UNITED STATES V. CITY OF MIAMI (11/17/1999, NO. 98-4626)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</P> <P> This appeal is the latest chapter in a lengthy litigation saga over a 1977 nondiscrimination consent decree between the United States of America. As if each of these officers actually would have received one of the two promotions in 1992.</P> <P> On appeal. The sole issue before us is whether the district court abused its discretion in fashioning broad
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="522"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2001/00-14340.opn.html">JOHNSON V. BD. OF REGENTS OF THE UNIV. OF GEORGIA (8/27/2001, NO. 00-14340)<BR></A><BR>
The three Plaintiffs are white females who applied unsuccessfully for admission to the University's Fall 1999 class. The University's freshman admissions policy does not unlawfully discriminate on the basis of race because the policy is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in ensuring a diverse student body. Student body diversity is not a compelling interest sufficient to withstand the strict scrutiny that courts must apply to government decision making based on race. Because even assuming that student body diversity is a compelling interest. The University's 1999 freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve this interest. Plaintiff Jennifer Johnson's complaint was filed separately. Eventually was consolidated with the complaint of Plaintiffs Aimee Bogrow and Molly Ann Beckenhauer.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19967016.OPA.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court based the award of EAJA fees on its determination that the United States' claim that the conduct of the defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was not substantially justified. Jr. was the probate judge for Dallas County. Nichols was the Sheriff of Dallas County and Roy Moore was a member of the Dallas County Commission. Lide is the white candidate who contested the vote count for District 2 in the November 1992 general election. The other defendants listed in the original action did not apply for attorneys' fee reimbursement under the EAJA. 1 * court concluded the claim filed pursuant to the Voting Rights Act was substantially justified. The legal issues were intertwined.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/031465p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Raymond Carnation are all former police officers who worked in the 7squad of the 25th District of the Philadelphia Police Department. 3 All three officers are white. We will view the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. We will reverse as we find that these three police officers have raised triable issues as to whether they suffered unlawful retaliation. Michael McKenna (hereinafter
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200111373.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Sitting by designation. 2 * William Riccard was demoted by his employer. The result of Riccard's demotion was to lessen the amount of disability payments he received. We have before us appeals that Riccard has filed contesting orders and judgments. Is also an appellant to the extent necessary to challenge sanctions imposed against Rasch. We will take up each of them after setting out some background. 3 I. BACKGROUND Riccard began working for Prudential in 1970 as a sales representative and was eventually promoted to sales manager. He was demoted from his position as sales manager back to sales representative. He was subsequently placed on long term disability leave and received disability payments from Prudential until November 1999. We will refer to them in the order in which they were filed as Riccard I IV. That Prudential had violated their employment agreement by demoting him from sales manager to sales representative which resulted in his disability benefits being lower than they would have been had he not been demoted.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/June1994/94a0743p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will reverse the order of the district court dismissing the appellant's sexual discrimination and harassment claims and assessing the jury costs against her. We will affirm the order of the district court dismissing the balance of the case. Is an investigator in the Pittsburgh Area Office of the EEOC.[fn1] Although she was hired in 1974 by that office. They have been dismissed from the action. Nelson and Butler are the director of the EEOC's Pittsburgh Area Office and the director of the EEOC's Philadelphia District Office. Butler is Nelson's superior. Nelson is Spain's superior. Have a history of passing over her for promotions to GM 13 and GM 14 level positions in favor of allegedly lesser qualified male African American applicants. It is undisputed that in 1985. The crux of Spain's sexual discrimination and harassment claims is that over the years rumors developed in the Pittsburgh office that Spain and Nelson were having an affair. Or leaving the office.[fn4] Spain charges that because it was improper for Nelson to solicit the loans.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/june96/95-8227.opa.html">ROZAR V. MULLIS<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>Rozar v. Denying an injunction and granting summary judgment to the defendants on the ground that the plaintiffs' federal claims were time barred. Which had almost reached capacity and was becoming contaminated. Some of which were readily rejected because of insufficient useable acreage or the owner's unwillingness to sell. The record contains evidence that additional sites were added to the list as others were eliminated.<p> In January 1991 the County Board met to discuss a site at Scotland Road. The Board voted to table any action until alternatives were studied. Plaintiffs say that the site was not pursued because white residents protested. That most of the area residents were African American. Both an African American and a white church were nearby.<p> The list of potential landfill sites was expanded to include Old Macon Road. The record indicates that this site was brought to the County Board's attention when the property owner offered to sell a sizable tract (more than 400 acres).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/10/02-1263.htm">02-1263 -- MITCHELL V. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER -- 10/12/2004<BR></A><BR>
He was a Construction Inspector II Step 7. Two were African American: Mitchell and James Phillips. Each inspector was assigned one of the resident engineers as a direct supervisor. The resident engineers were supervised by Joan Funk. Caucasian inspectors received promotions more quickly and were given more favorable assignments than he. He also alleges he was subjected racial epithets because he is African American. She was sometimes rude to him and gave him the silent treatment. <p> Mitchell also alleges that between 1991 and 1993. The factual basis for his claim is less than clear.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200414462.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs appellants (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//sept2002/01-11373.opn.html">RICCARD V. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. (9/24/2002, NO. 01-11373)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1263.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
42 U.S.C. (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. He was a Construction Inspector II Step 7. Two were African American: Mitchell and James Phillips. Each inspector was assigned one of the resident engineers as a direct supervisor. The resident engineers were supervised by Joan Funk. Caucasian inspectors received promotions more quickly and were given more favorable assignments than he. He also alleges he was subjected racial epithets because he is African American. She was sometimes rude to him and gave him the silent treatment. When she delayed the (2) Mitchell alleges Phillips also was assigned to less favorable jobs. <hr> paperwork needed for a training program. The factual basis for his claim is less than clear.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E0B63C25A5B854A288256B6500753688/$file/9917087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The opinion is amended as follows: (1) At page 354 of the Slip op. Was clearly in error since Plaintiff gave notice in her complaint that she sought relief under the Hawaii antidiscrimination law. We agree with the appellant that the testimony should not 2722 have been admitted and was highly prejudicial. We also hold that Plaintiff's statutory claims of sexual harassment should not have been dismissed pre trial. Plaintiff was subsequently ordered by Captain Robert Tam Ho to write a memorandum (known as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/C35DD8755B28039788256E530077F226/$file/0157065.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
McGinest alleges that he was placed in dangerous working conditions because of his race. McGinest claims that he was denied a promotion in late 1998 due to his race and in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. GTE responds that it was unable to promote him due to a hiring freeze. The court found that the incidents comprising the hostile work environment claim were sporadic. It found that McGinest was unable to produce sufficient evidence that GTE's stated reason for failing to promote him was a pretext. GTE SERVICE CORP. 3007 whether the denial of the promotion was prompted by a discriminatory motive. I. BACKGROUND George McGinest is an African American employee of GTE. McGinest was initially hired as a lineman. Because this case was decided on summary judgment. Although GTE is now owned by Verizon. We continue to refer to it by the name under which it was sued. 1 3008 MCGINEST v. Although the majority of these incidents were not accompanied by explicit racial comments. McGinest testified at his deposition that Noson's behavior and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1994/94a0792p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
29 U.S.C.A. §§ 621 634 (West 1985 & Supp. 1994).[fn2] The Armbruster Group consists of fourteen Unisys employees who were terminated in February 1991 in the course of a reduction in force (RIF) at Unisys. On appeal the Armbruster Group contends they produced evidence sufficient to show what is commonly referred to as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0133p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Macy alleged that the Board violated federal and state law by firing her because she was disabled and in retaliation for protected activities. The Board asserted that Macy was fired for threatening students and making inappropriate remarks about the students and their families. That this was the latest in a series of incidents of misconduct. Concluding that Macy had not introduced direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient for a jury to find that she was fired because of her disability or in retaliation for protected activities. Page 2 from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the Board's proffered reason for firing her was pretextual. I. BACKGROUND Sharon Macy was employed as a physical education teacher by the Hopkins County School Board of Education from August of 1981 until November 30. The 504 Plan described the impact of Macy's condition and listed accommodations that the Board and Macy were to implement. The 504 Plan noted that Macy
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Oct1996/96a1448p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Are engaged in. Or who would have the right to file or seek enforcement of administrative. We will affirm. Alleging that the amended Law Against Discrimination is both unconstitutionally overbroad and a content based restriction on speech. The facts underlying this dispute have been set forth several times by now. Appellants assert that the theological doctrine of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and its members is based strictly upon Biblical teachings. The sincerity with which these beliefs are held is not disputed. The director of the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights has stipulated that places of worship are not public accommodations within the meaning of the Law Against Discrimination and that Reverend Cummings would therefore not be subject to liability for discriminatory acts he might commit in his capacity as a pastor. While the challenges to the aiding and abetting prohibitions were ripe for review. The notice posting challenge was not. 902 F. To the extent appellants were asserting a valid facial challenge to the Law Against Discrimination.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-3169.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Lewis's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of res judicata. That she lacked standing to (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent. Was never served and was voluntarily dismissed from the case by Ms. Is a jurisdictional statute that provides the federal courts with subject matter jurisdiction to hear a civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. 1985. 1521 (10th Cir. 1991) (further explaining that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. That there is a presumption against the existence of federal jurisdiction. Lewis acknowledged that her claims were for medical malpractice and wrongful death. That defendants were not acting under color of state law. She states that her complaint did not mention that her <hr> father was African American and did not allege racial discrimination.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1995/95a1125p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm the judgment of the district court. McCray was advised that her position as a production control secretary was being eliminated but was offered another position. McCray declined the position and was laid off effective January 9. Finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that Corry discriminated against McCray on the basis of her age. Some or all of Charging Party's allegations of illegal employment discrimination have been dismissed. The determination letter and this notice will be the only notice of the Charging Party's right to sue by the Commission. . . . . Once this 90 day period is over. Charging Party's right to sue will be lost. The EEOC informed McCray that most of the facts set forth in her request for reconsideration could not be considered by the EEOC because they were time barred by the 300 day statute of limitations for filing charges of discrimination. You have the right to file a civil law suit in the appropriate U.S. District Court in accordance with the instructions which were included in your original letter of determination.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="520"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-1166a.html">MCI TELECOM CORP V. FCC<BR></A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1306.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/962215.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Alleging that her employment as a Clinical Research Associate was wrongfully terminated because of her sex and pregnancy and that Defendants retaliated against her by refusing to recall or rehire her. I. Kentucky recognizes the employment at will doctrine. An employee may assert a wrongful discharge action if the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well defined public policy evidenced by a constitutional or statutory provision. The decision of whether the public policy asserted meets these criteria is a question of law for the courts to decide. Discrimination on the basis of pregnancy or sex is contrary to the public policy of Kentucky. Assuming Stone was an employee of the Defendants. She was their only employee in the state of Kentucky. This argument is not supported by the language of the statute or by the Grzyb decision. Stone contends that her ability to state a claim under the public policy exception is supported by the decisions in Pari Mutuel Clerks' Union v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/82D2753F2AC1A0C788256B3B0082B39B/$file/9917087.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We agree with the appellant that the testimony should not have been admitted and was highly prejudicial. We also hold that Plaintiff's statutory claims of sexual harassment should not have been dismissed pre trial. Plaintiff was subsequently ordered by 340 Captain Robert Tam Ho to write a memorandum (known as a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-3037.htm">97-3037 -- MEDLOCK V. ORTHO BIOTECH INC. -- 01/05/1999<BR></A><BR>
The questions we must resolve on appeal are: (1) did Medlock present sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of retaliatory discharge as well as its award of punitive damages. (3) did the verdict form allow the jury to erroneously disregard after acquired evidence on which OBI could have legitimately relied to terminate plaintiff. Shortly after a meeting at which plaintiff learned that a scheduled salary increase was going to be postponed for six months. Describing plaintiff as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/05-7110a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Alleging that she was not selected for the Director's position in retaliation for the exercise of her First Amendment right to criticize the District government. After concluding that the District was not a party to the suit. Wilburn suggested that the salary denials were 3 motivated by the race and gender of the two candidates. Were identified for interviews. Wilburn Decl. at JA 120 constituted inadmissible hearsay because the District was not a party to the suit and. Again concluding that the District was not a party and thus Graham's statements were inadmissible. Wilburn appeals both the grant of
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0023n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are also white. Robb mentioned that there was also a black cat that had disappeared. He told Campbell that the black cat was his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200707/06-5016a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David H. With her on the brief were Jeffrey A. We review the district court's grant of summary judgment against Vickers on all her claims and affirm its decision that she was not the victim of illegal retaliation and discrimination. We also reverse its decision that the Merit Systems Protection Board (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="517"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=06-4057.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These matters are before the court on two separate petitions for rehearing. The petitions were filed separately and correspond to the two opinions issued in these appeals on April 17. The requests for panel rehearing are denied by the original panel which decided these cases. The en banc petitions were transmitted to all of the judges of the court who are in regular active service. A poll was requested. The decisions of the panel will stand. The en banc requests are denied. Judges Lucero and McConnell have filed dissents to the denial. They are attached and incorporated in this order. That response is also incorporated in this order. Because the panel's opinion will leave our circuit unnecessarily entangled in future review of time. It is important to distinguish between transitory and permanent speech. Not unlike most public parks in America in which permanent monuments have been placed. The government must have exercised some control over the form and content of the speech before the fact. 1141 43 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding sign was government speech where the city had
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0257p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
This is an appeal from a judgment entered on a verdict for the employer in an age discrimination case. The main issue we are asked to decide is whether the district court committed reversible error by including instructions in its charge to the jury that replicated the prima facie case and
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct97/96-7016.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. JONES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court based the award of EAJA fees on its determination that the United States' claim that the conduct of the defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was not substantially justified. Because the district court concluded the claim filed pursuant to the Voting Rights Act was substantially justified. The legal issues were intertwined.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/10/041666P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Simpson was struck by a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed and flung almost fifty feet in the air. Two years after his accident Simpson was able to return to work full time. Simpson was suspended for going home to wrap his knee on company time. Simpson requested and was granted sick leave to take his wife to a doctor's appointment. Simpson explained that he had dropped his wife off at the doctor's office and had parked by the river until it was time to pick her up. Simpson's discipline was reduced from termination to a fifteen day suspension and a directive to read the employee handbook. The discipline was upheld. He was not disciplined. In February 2000 he was suspended for three days for leaving work early without supervisor approval. This disciplinary action was upheld after a grievance. His discipline was reduced to a thirty six week suspension without pay. During the time Simpson was serving his suspension. When Simpson was reinstated. He was put on leave and eventually laid off with full pay and benefits.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct97/96-7016.opa.html">UNITED STATES V. JONES<BR></A><BR>
This document was created from RTF source by rtftohtml version 2.7.5 > <title>United States v. The district court based the award of EAJA fees on its determination that the United States' claim that the conduct of the defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments was not substantially justified. Because the district court concluded the claim filed pursuant to the Voting Rights Act was substantially justified. The legal issues were intertwined.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0536n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Because some of Austion's claims were untimely. Because Clarksville's other contentions are without merit. Who is African American. He quickly was selected as an officer for the Vice/Narcotics Unit. He was aware that they were displayed in the station. He held that position for two years until 1998 when he was demoted to patrolman because of performance deficiencies. The noose was displayed for at least four months until African American Detective Tony Blakely contacted the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200604/04-7126a.pdf">O:\BENCH_MO\2005-2006\CORKRAN\JANUARY CASES\2922 SHERMAN AVE TENANTS V. DC\SHERMAN AVE OPINION(4-04-06)(FOR PUB).WPD<BR></A><BR>
With him on the briefs were Robert J. Musolino was on the brief for cross appellant Andrew J. With him on the briefs were John P. Palmore were on the brief for amici curiae National Fair Housing Alliance. Because the district court should have instructed the jury on their DCHRA claim. Columbia Heights is. The following evidence was presented: In early 2000. Was intended to protect the health and safety of building tenants. NSP released a final
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200003/98-5503a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With her on the briefs were Wilma A. With him on the brief was Richard A. The case was prosecuted on the theory that NASA had mixed motives for Borgo's termination. Concluding that NASA was at least partially motivated by a desire to retaliate against Borgo for protected activity. Further concluding that Borgo would not have been fired in the absence of the retaliatory motive. Be cause we conclude that NASA's motivation is a disputed issue of fact that a reasonable jury could decide either of two ways. She was expected to serve primarily as Executive Secretary of the NASA Minority Business Resources Advisory Committee (NMBRAC). She was removed as Executive Secre tary of NMBRAC because of tension between her and NMBRAC's chairman. Thomas wrote that he was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/992137.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. OPINION PER CURIAM: These appeals were consolidated for oral argument pursuant to U.S. They were given lower annual evaluations and correspondingly lower annual raises from 1994 to 1998. Were denied other professional opportunities incident to their employment at VSU.1 The cases were consolidated by the district court for discovery and trial. Their claims are not a part of this appeal. 2 Farley was named as a defendant in Saleh's case only. Epps was named as a defendant in Mbagwu's case only. Saleh's discrimination and retaliation claims against Demers were presented to the jury and a verdict was returned in Demers' favor. 1 SALEH v. The district court determined that the underlying factual allegations were subject to Virginia's two year statute of limitations. The district court found that evidence respecting the time barred allegations was relevant to prove discriminatory intent as to the claims surviving summary judgment. The matter was tried before a jury.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0386p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court held that the FMLA's purported abrogation of Ohio's Eleventh Amendment immunity was unconstitutional as it related to the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="515"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/05a0087n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I. Plaintiff Appellant Jose Hilbert was a corrections officer (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053157np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Individually whose identities are currently unknown On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey D.C. Persons whose identities are currently unknown (all collectively referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=02-1382.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=99-1086.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Angelone</U> was on brief. Namely her Count II claim that the defendants' retaliation infringed on her First Amendment rights and her Count III claim that she was denied equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment because other parents could access their children's records and teachers. The district court ruled that Weber's Count IV claim was barred because of her failure to exhaust administrative remedies specified by IDEA. IDEA requires such exhaustion prior to bringing a civil action pursuant to other federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities if the relief sought is available under subchapter II of IDEA. Such relief is sought through the administrative due process hearing provided in subchapter II of IDEA. <U>See</U> 20 U.S.C. § . Identified as a disabled child in need of special education services under IDEA.<A HREF=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/053850p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That it did not promote Scheidemantle because she was unqualified for the position. Scheidemantle was not hired. Was selected for the position. 2 Slippery Rock argues that Scheidemantle's invocation of her license as a measure of her greater qualifications is a red herring. Legislative attempts to regulate locksmithing by requiring locksmith licenses have failed four times in Pennsylvania. Noting that her under which each entity agrees to yield investigatory authority to the Commission with which an action is first filed. Or national origin. ... 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 2(a)(1). 4 The relevant provisions state as follows: The opportunity for an individual to obtain employment for which he is qualified . . . without discrimination because of [. [or] 5 home study course was the equivalent of 241 hours of actual locksmithing experience. It concluded that Scheidemantle's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/001241.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Inc. trades as DARCARS Toyota and will be referred to as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/E252B9BFD64B1D5F88256C8700818C56/$file/0115287.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We nonetheless reverse and remand because the question whether the adjustments were more than remedial raises a factual issue that cannot. Northern Arizona University (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July1996/96a1359p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
After the Delaware schools' rudimentary attempts at desegregation were deemed insufficient by the district court in 1957. It was not until almost 20 years later (and 35 years after this court announced dissatisfaction with an original plan that called for grade by grade desegregation over a 12 year period) that the district court could announce that the marching orders had been obeyed: The school system has achieved unitary status by complying in good faith with our detailed desegregation decrees and by eliminating to the extent practicable the vestiges of de jure segregation. This was the ruling of the district court embodied in a judgment entered after a lengthy hearing. We will affirm. It is beyond dispute that racism and bigotry continue to tear at the fragile social fabric of our national and local communities. That our best efforts as citizens are needed to address this problem at many levels. Court supervised school desegregation alone cannot eliminate racial discrimination: [A]s the years have passed since Brown I and II [Brown v.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200211817.opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
When they terminated his employment and that his discharge was in retaliation for his filing of a complaint with the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D8E586240111EE68825718D0074F92F/$file/0415787.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/B4393644C183E8D9882572A60080F2AF/$file/0555347.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who is paraplegic. Speculating that the jury could have reasonably concluded that because of Molski's record of litigiousness. He was a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="513"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-2388.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Makechnie & Vetne were on brief. The
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200313858.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.1 We first hold that the SZO's provision excluding churches and synagogues from locations where private clubs and lodges are permitted violates the equal terms provision of RLUIPA. We must decide whether RLUIPA is a constitutional exercise of Congress's authority under the First. Finding that it is. Midrash and Young Israel (collectively the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200315443.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The question in this appeal is whether the district court properly awarded attorney's fees to a prevailing defendant. We conclude that the district court abused its discretion by awarding fees for the defense against the claim that was not frivolous. The district chiefs of the Sheriff's Office were responsible for submitting recommendations for promotion when vacancies occurred in the sergeant ranks. Fifty two were promoted by 2000. Only three were Hispanic. There is no information in the record regarding the total number of Hispanics on the eligibility list. Although Quintana was not promoted from the 1998 eligibility list. None of whom were Hispanic. Quintana was suspended with pay due to disciplinary matters. His request was not granted and was forwarded to Brennan. Quintana alleged that Brennan expressed anger towards Quintana for violating the chain of command by attempting to obtain the eligibility list from Human Resources. 3 Quintana alleged that he then told Brennan that he wanted the list because he believed he was not promoted in 1998 because he was Hispanic.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR>
The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200612370.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Who are state environmental regulators and local political actors. Brought a section 1983 suit against various state and local defendants on the theory that the defendants violated its constitutional right to equal protection by
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=01-1995.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Was on brief. Appellant Tara Gorski was employed by the New Hampshire Department of Corrections (the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct98/95-2898.man.html">WALKER V. MORTHAM (10/28/1998, NO. 95-2898)<BR></A><BR>
The case was certified as a class action. Remanding the case to the district court with directions.</P> <P><CENTER>I.</CENTER> </P> <P> This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Such tests are not an issue in this case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA1LTE4MzEtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/05-1831-cv_opn.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Its ghost is reportedly responsible for numerous frightful encounters. Plaintiffs claimed they were exposed to a hostile work environment. Being Mayor of Sleepy Hollow is a As Mayor. Zegarelli is a voting member of the seven member Village Board and is responsible for its personnel practices. The Village Administrator makes recommendations to the Mayor on personnel decisions and is responsible for the Village's day to day operations. Plaintiff Demoret was the secretary/assistant to the Mayor and to the Administrator for six years from August 1997 to September 2003. Plaintiff Pell is the Village recreation 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 supervisor. During the three years she was employed by the Village prior to Douglas's hire as Village Administrator in May 2000. Douglas checked frequently at her desk to see if she was accomplishing her other duties for him. One of Demoret's charges is Douglas acted condescendingly toward her by closely supervising her work. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 She also asserts Douglas treated her rudely throughout the time they worked together in failing to say good morning to her or engage her in conversation.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-5234.htm">96-5234 -- WILSON V. TULSA JUNIOR COLLEGE -- 12/31/1998<BR></A><BR>
(2) that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that TJC knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take appropriate remedial action. <p> We review de novo a district court's disposition of a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Judgment as a matter of law is warranted
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/new/release.pl?B1=Search+Month&month=02&date=01&year=04">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was certified as a class action. The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). I. This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. The full name of the organization was Increase Minority Participation by Affirmative Change Today of Northwest Florida.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19952898.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The case was certified as a class action. Finding that none of the plaintiffs had carried The plaintiffs' original complaint was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (1994). The district court's task was to examine the evidence the plaintiff adduced at trial and determine whether the plaintiff had presented credible evidence in support of the four elements of a prima facie case established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): 1) she is a member of a protected class under Title VII. 2) she was qualified for the employment position in question. 3) she applied for the employment position in question and was rejected. 4) the employment position remained open or was filled by a person outside the protected class to which the plaintiff belongs. We are equally suited to undertake the same task on appeal. Can determine whether the evidence supporting the prima facie case is credible. 2 2 This case was brought in 1979 as a class action in the District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The plaintiffs filed an
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=97-1128.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Totti & Rodriguez Diaz was on brief. By (1) assigning Coutin (who was then pregnant) to tasks that were detrimental to her physical and emotional health. The elements of which were subsumed. Under the 1Coutin's spouse and their conjugal partnership are also plaintiffs and appellants in this litigation. We opt for simplicity and treat the appeal as if Coutin were the sole plaintiff and appellant. 2 broader federal claim. That aspect of her original claim was pretermitted. We will disturb such an award only for mistake of law or abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="511"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/05/03-5124.htm">03-5124 -- MILLSAP V. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. -- 05/21/2004<BR></A><BR>
Any other damages based upon backpay) are available as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/03a0402p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Factual background Gettings was hired by the Fund as a secretary/clerk in 1978. Five other people were employed in the Fund's office: three clerks. Gettings and the three other clerks were members of the Office and Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU). Compensation for the field auditor and the fund administrator was set by the Fund's Board of Trustees. Gettings claims that Mickshaw was incompetent and unqualified for this position. Because Mickshaw was purportedly unable to fulfill his duties as the field auditor. Gettings complains that she and Mickshaw were doing the same kind of work. That Mickshaw was being paid $35. 000 more per year than she was by virtue of his formally holding the position of field auditor. Alleging that the Fund was discriminating against her because of her gender. The OPEIU union steward were subsequently taken by an assistant state attorney general on behalf of the OCRC. Gettings admitted that there were significant differences between the duties of a field auditor and the duties of a clerk.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67738D773800E32388256AA20001DB0A/$file/9917458.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that Bachelder was not entitled to the Act's protection for her 1996 absences. To care for a family members who are ill. In an age when all the adults in many families are in the work force. Is also a plaintiff and appellant in this case. Even if the parties have not disputed standing. The standing question is irrelevant in this case because Penny Bachelder unquestionably has standing to sue. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0318p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
On the grounds that Defendants terminated a real estate sales contract with the Lindsays one day after learning that the Lindsays are black. Page 2 the further reason that they failed to plead facts showing that the purchase agreement executed by the parties was valid and enforceable. Facts The Lindsays are an African American couple who reside in Richland County. The Yateses' home is located at 2268 Eckert Road. Which were not for sale. The Lindsays allege that Sluss and Eicher told them that Brent Yates was authorized by his mother to negotiate the sale of the property and execute a purchase agreement. Or national origin.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Feb2004/023659p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We also decide that because substantial portions of Title VII are governed by laches. Plaintiff was employed by defendant Correctional Services. From 1991 until she was discharged in 1996. Correctional was a subchapter S corporation engaged in the business of supplying medical services to incarcerated inmates in several states. Specifically mentioned were discrimination claims brought by the plaintiff and two other individuals.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr2000/99-12255.man.html">LEWIS V. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASS'N (4/13/2000, NO. 99-12255)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 5(g)(2)(B). In <EM>Price Waterhouse </EM>the Supreme Court held that an employer would not be liable for sex discrimination under Title VII if it could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same disputed employment decision even in the absence of the alleged discrimination. This is a retaliation case under the age discrimination statute. Which are recited in detail by the district court. Are summarized as follows: Plaintiff was employed as an aerobics instructor by the YMCA beginning approximately in April 1988. After she was taken off the aerobics schedule in August 1995 for alleged misconduct. Her case was dismissed in April 1997. Plaintiff applied and was turned down for employment at a different YMCA branch.</P> <P> Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in the district court. An employer can escape liability by establishing that it would have made the same employment decision even absent a retaliatory motive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8AA81159CCBF90FF882570650057106F/$file/0355403.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Dang prevailed in a jury trial on his excessive force claim against Officer Gilbert Cross of the City of Compton Police Department and was awarded compensatory damages. We hold that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury that it could award punitive damages if it found that Cross acted in an oppressive manner and we conclude that this error was not harmless. Dang was the shop manager of the Compton Jewelry Exchange. Who was waiting outside the store with two other officers. Dang was in the office. Which was separated from the salesroom where the officers stood by a bulletproof window and a steel security door. The officers informed Dang that he was under arrest.1 Without patting down or searching Dang. Dang informed the officers that the ring was in a safe. Knocking him to the floor.2 As Dang was pushed to the floor. When Dang was told he was under arrest. Dang testified that Officer Cross turned the camcorder off and removed it after Dang was handcuffed. 2 Dang testified that he reached into the safe to place the rings that he was wearing in the safe for safekeeping.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr2000/99-12255.man.html">LEWIS V. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASS'N (4/13/2000, NO. 99-12255)<BR></A><BR>
Senior Circuit Judge.</P> <P> PER CURIAM:</P> <P> The principal issue in this case is whether 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 5(g)(2)(B). In <EM>Price Waterhouse </EM>the Supreme Court held that an employer would not be liable for sex discrimination under Title VII if it could prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same disputed employment decision even in the absence of the alleged discrimination. This is a retaliation case under the age discrimination statute. Which are recited in detail by the district court. Are summarized as follows: Plaintiff was employed as an aerobics instructor by the YMCA beginning approximately in April 1988. After she was taken off the aerobics schedule in August 1995 for alleged misconduct. Her case was dismissed in April 1997. Plaintiff applied and was turned down for employment at a different YMCA branch.</P> <P> Plaintiff filed another lawsuit in the district court. An employer can escape liability by establishing that it would have made the same employment decision even absent a retaliatory motive.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/DAEC0F3D7F6C5B7488256F6B007897F0/$file/0215475.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
WL (9th Cir. 2004) (unpublished disposition). **This appeal was withdrawn from submission pending the United States Supreme Court's decision in Miller El v. This Opinion was circulated to the panel on October 23. 1 we hold the state court's
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/99-4210.htm">99-4210 -- U.S. V. HARDMAN -- 08/08/2001<BR></A><BR>
That the Act is enforced in a discriminatory fashion in violation of his equal protection rights. Hardman is not of Native American descent. His ex wife and two children are. His ex wife and children are enrolled members of the S'Kallum Tribe. Hardman was still married to and living with his ex wife. He was informed that he would not be allowed to apply as he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe. <p> Years later. Hardman and his wife were separated. Ute tribal officers were informed by Mr. Officer Murray was a cross commissioned federal law enforcement officer acting under the authority of the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. Which were hanging from the rear view mirror of his truck. <p> On March 10. Hardman was issued a federal violation notice for possessing golden eagle feathers without a permit in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. A bench trial was held before a magistrate judge. Hardman was found guilty of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and sentenced to pay a small fine.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jun1997/97a1619p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court's conclusion that appellants failed to establish a section 2 violation was not clearly erroneous. Its legal conclusions were sound. We will affirm. We have jurisdiction over this timely filed appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. So our review of the district court's legal analysis is plenary. Our review of the court's factual findings is governed by the clearly erroneous standard.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=00-2492.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Duncan</U> were on brief. <U>Circuit Judge</U>.</STRONG></FONT><FONT FACE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jul2001/993019.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is HIV positive. He was informed by the medical staff at the State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh (SCIP) that his medical condition would be kept confidential. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. Because this right was not clearly established at the time of defendants' conduct. We will affirm the dismissal of Doe's complaint. Doe was informed by the medical staff that he was HIV positive. He was told that his medical condition would be kept confidential and that medical r ecords relating to his illness would be maintained separately from his general prison file. Doe's condition was not kept confidential. When Doe was taken for sick call appointments. Doe claimed his constitutional right to privacy was violated by the
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043707p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Order and Opinion of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was initially made a party to this action but was subsequently removed as a party. 2 1 granting the Township's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. Which is located in Allegheny County. The subject property was located in a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/August2002/012782.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The principal issue on appeal is whether the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania waived its sovereign immunity by accepting certain federal funds for the Department of Corrections. We will reverse in part and affirm in part. George Koslow was hired by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections as a water treatment plant supervisor for the State Correctional Institute in Graterford. He was dismissed for being unable to perform
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Nov2002/011040.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
PA 19107 * This matter was originally heard on February 12. The Panel was reconstituted to include Judge Roth. The appeal was submitted. 2 Sharyn A. Which was implicit in Griggs v. We will affirm the judgment of the District Court in favor of SEPTA. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. There is. One undisputed fact which bears repetition because it sets the stage for what is to follow: it is undisputed that SEPTA management wanted to improve the crime fighting ability of SEPTA's force and the fitness of its officers. This case was consolidated before the District Court with United States v. That motion was granted on October 12. SEPTA officers are deployed alone and on foot. Is characterized by long distances between stations. These calls are divided into two categories. Often the only method available to get to the scene quickly is a run of five to eight city blocks.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/05/02/034039P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
She contends that she established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her relationship or association with her disabled newborn child was a motivating factor in the Bank's decision to eliminate her position and effectively terminate her employment. She argues that summary judgment was therefore improperly granted on several of her claims.1 For the reasons discussed below. Jurisdiction was proper in the district court based upon 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Jurisdiction is proper in this court based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The notice of appeal was timely filed pursuant to Fed. Background The following is a summary of the background facts as set forth in the district court's summary judgment order. When she was promoted to Senior Vice President (VP) of Operations and Information Systems. She was promoted to Executive VP of Retail Banking. Cherpes was engaged by the Bank to help stabilize and reengineer the Operations Department. Strate was granted permission to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/2D3D92C93F0B5E9088256C2B004F61E0/$file/9816545.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Part of which is still pending. Were eligible for Hawaii's QUEST medical coverage. Have concluded after bench trials with awards of compensatory damages and are the subject of the current consolidated appeal. CHANDLER 13123 conclusion that the class plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory damages. We hold that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Group members also had to have an income no greater than 100% of the federal poverty level and assets not in excess of $2. The State extended medical and dental benefits to a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F7B9A16457E3FE3A88256E5A00707C35/$file/9917458.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Holding that Bachelder was not entitled to the Act's protection for her 1996 absences. To care for a family members who are ill. In an age when all the adults in many families are in the work force. Is also a plaintiff and appellant in this case. Even if the parties have not disputed standing. The standing question is irrelevant in this case because Penny Bachelder unquestionably has standing to sue. Is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="508"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/06/062368P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The facts are as follows. Captain Davison actively and publicly opposed the Plan and asserts that she repeatedly was denied promotion to the position of Arson Investigator in retaliation for her outspoken and public opposition. Kathy and [her son] were at a neighborhood meeting.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Mar1995/95a0986p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
These consolidated appeals have been taken from judgments and orders in three civil actions against the City of Philadelphia and certain of its former officials and employees. The court is divided on the disposition of various issues and on certain issues there are majorities consisting of each of the three possible combination of judges. On other issues the court is unanimous. In this opinion I will set forth the ultimate conclusions reached and also will set forth the majority view on some points and my own view on other points. Judges Scirica and Lewis are filing separate opinions. As a matter of convenience I largely will deliver this opinion in the first person. Judge Scirica and I conclude that all the individual defendants are immune because their actions on May 13. We will affirm the grant of summary judgment to defendants Wilson Goode. Will reverse the denial of summary judgment on the section 1983 claims to defendants Brooks. Judges Scirica and Lewis conclude that the City of Philadelphia is not entitled to summary judgment on the section 1983 claims and accordingly we will affirm the district court's denial of summary judgment to the city on those claims.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//jan98/96-5375.man.html">BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)<BR></A><BR>
We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Bledsoe was employed as a Resource Technician for the District from January 1988 until his termination in October of 1992. Against the District and Palm Beach County alleging that both of those entities were his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/jan98/96-5375.man.html">BLEDSOE V. PALM BEACH COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIST. (1/22/1998, NO. 96-5375)<BR></A><BR>
We reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.</P> <P><CENTER>I. <EM>BACKGROUND</EM></CENTER> </P> <P> Bledsoe was employed as a Resource Technician for the District from January 1988 until his termination in October of 1992. Against the District and Palm Beach County alleging that both of those entities were his
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/04a0117n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That he was terminated as part of a reduction in force. That he was not replaced by a younger employee. Inc. (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/aug2000/98-5367.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/10circuit/jan96/94-1351.html">ELLIS V. UNITED AIRLINES<BR></A><BR>
Plaintiffs argued that United's explanation was a pretext for intentional discrimination against them because of their age. Cannot excuse United's failure to grant Plaintiffs the preferential hiring treatment to which they were entitled under the ADA as airline employees displaced by deregulation. We reject Plaintiffs' ADEA claim because Plaintiffs have failed to submit evidence raising a genuine dispute that United's explanation for not hiring them is pretextual. Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence raising a genuine dispute that United's explanation for not hiring them is pretextual. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that Plaintiffs are not entitled to the payment of further expert witness fees because their motion for such fees was untimely. One standard sets weight limits which must initially be met by new job applicants and the second standard establishes maximum weight limits that cannot be exceeded by flight attendants after they are hired. Was a product of its collective bargaining agreement with the flight attendant union.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/08/063119P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Clegg was working in the Tucker maximum security unit as a Substance Abuse Treatment Program (SATP) coordinator. Clegg was classified as a Grade 20 employee. Clegg was activated for military duty in Iraq as part of her service in the Army National Guard. The first was that state certification requirements had changed while she was on leave and that in order to remain qualified for her job and to continue to be employed by the ADOC. Clegg that they were considering assigning her to the Therapeutic Community (TC) counseling unit at Tucker. Clegg was notified by ADOC on August 27. Clegg in the SATP unit upon her return were Cedric Albritton. Clegg's duties when she was on military leave. Clegg's immediate supervisor was Kerry Bakken. She alleged that during that time she was subjected to retaliation by being denied items she required for work and that she was discriminated against because she was not given her same position or rate of pay upon her return. A second EEOC complaint was filed by Ms. In which she alleged various types of retaliatory behavior were directed toward her after she filed the first EEOC complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19954445.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogramsized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami. Investigators discovered that Appellant Mercedes Novaton was the record owner of the duplex. The nine appellants have raised a plethora of issues related to their convictions and sentences. We have carefully considered all of their arguments. We summarily reject all of those arguments that are not mentioned in this opinion. 3 1 and that she lived there with her husband Appellant Francisco Novaton. The agents investigating the Novaton residence obtained authority to intercept wire communications on various telephones used by people who were suspected of participating in the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. 000 of which were transcribed). The investigators learned that several co conspirators were engaged in the distribution of cocaine through various houses in Miami.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2002/02-10223.opn.html">LOVE V. DELTA AIR LINES (10/31/2002, NO. 02-10223)<BR></A><BR>
We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445)<BR></A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0438p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
William Leslie were employees of the Kentucky Department of Parks. They were terminated from employment in May 2004 for failing to comply with the Department's dress code. I. The district court set forth the following relevant facts in its opinion granting summary judgment: The Plaintiffs were seasonal workers employed to perform maintenance services at the General Burnside State Park during the summer months. That we are working hard to eliminate the deficit associated with operating the State Parks. . . . [I]t is may [sic] small details that we must pay attention to in order to attract tourists to our Parks and provide them outstanding experience that will make them want to come back and visit with us. We have implemented a new professional appearance policy that ALL employees must adhere to at each Park location. Or wrist bands are approved ways to cover). Please be advised that there are no exceptions to this policy. . . . Failure to comply with the new policy is clearly insubordination. It is your role as park managers to ensure that ALL employees comply with Park policies.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19996133.OPN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. I. The individual plaintiffs are six African Americans who sought to purchase homes in Montgomery. This action was the only case to be tried during the term. After the venire was sworn by the clerk. After voir dire was completed. One of which was granted. Both of whom were struck by the court. Of the prospective jurors the first fourteen remaining on the venire eleven were white and three were black. The district court found that a prima facie case was established because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//aug2000/98-5367.man.html">EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM'N V. JOE'S STONE CRAB (8/4/2000, NO. 98-5367)<BR></A><BR>
Circuit Judge:</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/19996133.MAN.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. I. The individual plaintiffs are six African Americans who sought to purchase homes in Montgomery. This action was the only case to be tried during the term. After the venire was sworn by the clerk. After voir dire was completed. One of which was granted. Both of whom were struck by the court. Of the prospective jurors the first fourteen remaining on the venire eleven were white and three were black. The district court found that a prima facie case was established because
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/01/97-1130.htm">97-1130 -- SHANKLE V. B-G MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT OF COLORADO INC. -- 01/05/1999<BR></A><BR>
The Agreement is broad in scope and covers all claims between the parties. Shankle agreed that
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//dec2000/99-6133.man.html">CENT. ALABAMA FAIR HOUS. CTR. V. LOWDER REALTY CO. (12/21/2000, NO. 99-6133)<BR></A><BR>
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. Remand for a new trial.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200312/02-7138a.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/dec2000/99-6133.man.html">CENT. ALABAMA FAIR HOUS. CTR. V. LOWDER REALTY CO. (12/21/2000, NO. 99-6133)<BR></A><BR>
The Central Alabama Fair Housing Center argues that the district court erred in instructing the jury that the Center's right to recover was contingent upon a finding that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against the individual plaintiffs. Remand for a new trial.</SPAN></P> <P><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/oct2002/02-10223.opn.html">LOVE V. DELTA AIR LINES (10/31/2002, NO. 02-10223)<BR></A><BR>
We reverse.</SPAN></P> <P ALIGN=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/May2004/031226p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Plaintiffs are a class of mentally retarded adults in need of medical services from an intermediate care facility for persons with mental retardation (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="506"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//oct2001/95-4445.opn.html">UNITED STATES V. NOVATON (10/30/2001, NO. 95-4445)<BR></A><BR>
Humberto Rodriguez were convicted of various drug related crimes that took place in 1993. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the Miami Police Department learned of a cocaine distribution operation in which kilogram sized bricks of cocaine were being sold from a duplex in Miami.</SPAN><SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/6B334262761334BB882571ED007FB7CF/$file/0356259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented by this appeal is whether this requirement attaches to recall petitions initiated. When the proponents are required to draft the petitions in a form specified by the State and county. We conclude that § 1973aa 1a(c) does not apply to such recall petitions because they are not
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200413800op2.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The primary question in this appeal is whether petitioner. The facts we state are Williams's allegations. Was hiding in Cole's closet. As Brandon was sexually assaulting Williams. Cole was on the telephone with Steven Thomas. Cole told Thomas and Grant that they were
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//july98/97-8423.man.html">LEE V. HUGHES (7/9/1998, NO. 97-8423)<BR></A><BR>
We must decide whether a federal employee who is not afforded an administrative or judicial remedy under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (codified and amended in various sections of 5 U.S.C.) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-2301.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
As well as claims filed pursuant to the City's Merit System Ordinance and Personnel Rules and Regulations for breach of (1) This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case. Vigil as the party opposing summary judgment.(2) Many of the relevant facts are mainly undisputed. Are not supported in the record. Vigil is a Hispanic male who. Worked for the City as an Internal Services Supervisor.(3) The Internal Services Section is a part of the Purchasing Division and provides materials management in addition to procurement and purchasing functions. Vigil was responsible for a $1 million budget. Vigil also alleged discrimination concerning the same Purchasing Officer position which in 2002 was awarded to another male candidate promoted over Mr. We remind counsel that it is the appellant's responsibility to provide us with a proper record on appeal. If the appellant's appendix is insufficient to permit assessment of claims of error. Vigil was a senior buyer for the City for six years and did purchasing for the City warehouse.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3047.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Of counsel on the brief were Steven E. The Board's decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The case is remanded to the Board for adjudication of the merits of Mr. The announcement stated that the position was
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/05-3077.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the brief were Peter D. Because the VEOA is subject to equitable tolling and Kirkendall is entitled to a hearing on his USERRA claim. Was chosen to fill the position. All of which were denied. The board affirmed the AJ's decision that the VEOA claim was precluded for failure to timely file. Kirkendall appealed to the Merit Systems 05 3077 2 board held that Kirkendall's assertion that he was not selected based on his status as a disabled veteran was cognizable under USERRA. That Kirkendall had offered no proof that his veteran status was a substantial or motivating factor in his non selection. The AJ further held that discrimination could not be inferred because: (1) Kirkendall's non selection was based on the indefiniteness of his application. (2) all other applicants on the Certificate of Eligibles were veterans. Who was eligible for a 10 point preference. Was selected for the position. The AJ's remand decision was adopted by the board when review was denied. Discussion We are presented with three issues: (1) is the 60 day filing deadline contained in 5 U.S.C. § 3330a(a)(2)(A) subject to equitable tolling.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1747p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORIX Credit Alliance's petition for rehearing en banc was granted. ORIX Credit Alliance is a subsidiary of companies that are in turn subsidiaries of ORIX Corporation. ORIX Credit Alliance is a commercial finance company that is engaged primarily in the business of financing the acquisition or leasing of equipment. Frederick Keller was born on January 31. He was hired by Franklin National Bank and eventually handled its relationship with Credit Alliance Corporation. Keller was promoted to senior vice president of finance. Therefore it was no longer necessary for Keller to raise money. Keller and six other key executives were requested to sign employment contracts with the new company. Keller was given the responsibility for raising funding for ORIX Credit Alliance. 1.3 billion of which was to continue to be provided on a temporary basis. Because it was the goal of Credit Alliance to obtain funding independent of First Interstate Bancorp and of ORIX Corp. or ORIX USA[an ORIX subsidiary] [Keller] determined that it would ultimately be necessary for Credit Alliance to have available credit facilities totaling approximately 1.5 billion dollars.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1998/98a1776p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Bayonne is a
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Nov1997/97a1747p.htm">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
ORIX Credit Alliance's petition for <p>rehearing en banc was granted. ORIX Credit <p>Alliance is a subsidiary of companies that are in turn <p>subsidiaries of ORIX Corporation. ORIX Credit Alliance is a commercial <p>finance company that is engaged primarily in the business <p>of financing the acquisition or leasing of equipment. Id. at 80. <br wp=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/apr98/96-9114.man.html">ARRINGTON V. COBB COUNTY (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9114)<BR></A><BR>
Because this appeal is from the district court's grant of summary judgement. Arrington oversaw the development of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program that soon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/972584.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: The principal issue in this appeal is whether a labor union that represents federal employees may constitute a labor organization as that term is defined in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). Because the ADA provides that the term
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/july98/97-8423.man.html">LEE V. HUGHES (7/9/1998, NO. 97-8423)<BR></A><BR>
We must decide whether a federal employee who is not afforded an administrative or judicial remedy under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (codified and amended in various sections of 5 U.S.C.) (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//apr98/96-9114.man.html">ARRINGTON V. COBB COUNTY (4/24/1998, NO. 96-9114)<BR></A><BR>
Because this appeal is from the district court's grant of summary judgement. Arrington oversaw the development of an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program that soon
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=04-1641_020.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Now appeals the district court's decision to deny him qualified immunity and argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct did not constitute a violation of Dr. Because it was not clearly established that Dean Moss's concurrence with Dr. Nanda's research was in line with needs of the Department. Nanda could receive a written
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/F000BF96875E8BAA88256B6D00606B3C/$file/0130032.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is unconstitutional. 3208 I Cole Cameron Cummings married Dana Hopkins in 1989. All of whom were born in the United States and resided with their parents in the State of Washington. The oldest child (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="504"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/8D313799BB6F1D3E88256DD70060F3B1/$file/0056803.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
I Francisco Vasquez is a Deputy Probation Officer. DKC is a detention facility for youth who have committed less serious crimes. The DPOs are assigned to a particular cottage or to the field. Vasquez was assigned to
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/981502.P.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is bound by a private arbitration agreement between the charging party and his employer. Other circuits are split on the proper response to this question. Recognizing that the EEOC is vested with enforcement authority both to seek broad based injunctive relief in the public interest and to seek
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug1996/96a1400p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
In this long running litigation aspects of which have been before this court before appellants. All of whom we will refer to collectively as
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/68E05CAB4661E0CD88256E0F005CDFED/$file/0056803.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Is amended as follows: 1. This evidence is insufficient to make out a prima facie case.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0534n-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court also found in the alternative that Brewer could not establish that Cedar Lake's proffered legitimate business reason for selecting a different candidate was pretextual. Although we disagree with Brewer in part she did not present direct evidence of discrimination we agree with her that she at least presented circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination affecting the employment decision and enough evidence to show that she was similarly situated compared to the person who was awarded the position. I. Cedar Lake is a non profit corporation that provides an Intermediate Care Facility and comprehensive support services for individuals with mental retardation. Both of these programs were administered by the Adult Day Program Coordinator. Who at that time was Frank Goodloe. The position was necessary to help Goodloe and his assistant. Who was already familiar with the clients. The position was posted internally. Only existing Cedar Lake employees were considered. The Adult Program Aide job description was modeled after the habilitation aide job description.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Aug2000/985061.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were violated on two occasions: once when he was a kindergarten student and once when he was in the first grade.1 The District Court held. This en banc court finds itself equally divided on the issue of whether judgment was properly entered in favor of the defendants other than the Department of Education on the First Amendment claim arising from the first grade episode. We will affirm the District Court's judgments in favor of those defendants on that basis without further explication. While we agree with the District Court that the Department of Education is immune from suit in a federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. We will vacate the judgment in its favor and remand with instructions to dismiss the claims against it for lack of jurisdiction. We will remand. To give C.H. an opportunity to cure the deficiencies we have identified if she is able to do so. I. The following facts are affirmatively alleged in the 1. It is unnecessary for us to distinguish in this opinion between the two theories of liability. 3 complaint.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-5.gif" ALT="502"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1998/12/96-1470.htm">96-1470 -- GARRATT V. WALKER -- 12/09/1998<BR></A><BR>
Because any contribution that an employer might make on behalf of employees (including himself) was completely discretionary. We view it in the light most favorable to the party against whom summary judgment was entered. Particularly given the employer's assertion in his answer that the plan was to be so construed. <u>See</u> <u>Crouch v. We follow the panel's decision that a SEP is a pension plan within the meaning of ERISA. <u>See</u> <u>Garratt</u>. The employee requested whatever contribution percentage (based upon her salary) that the employer was making on his own behalf. Although it was suggested at oral argument that the employee was seeking an immediate contribution. Such an inference would be contrary to the standard by which we evaluate the record. <p> It is undisputed that the employee was eligible to participate in the SEP plan and that the employee was earning $24. 000 amount was below the employee's 1993 and 1994 compensation level and. The employer conceded that he was asking the employee to take a cut in pay and fund the plan. <u>Id.</u> at 51.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1401.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Were on brief. Was on brief. Were on brief. <SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/971500.U.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. His claims were denied by then Chief Judge Black. His appeal to the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit was also denied. Where it was dismissed on summary judgment. Kostishak claimed that his termination was not due to poor work performance. Rather was discrimination. He alleged that the firing 2 was done in retaliation against him because he intended to serve as a witness for another Bankruptcy Court employee who claimed racial discrimination by Judge Mannes. Kostishak also claimed that the firing was discrimination based upon his age (60) and disability (hypertension). Chief Judge Black agreed with Haas that the claim was meritless and wrote a letter to Kostishak in which he explained his findings. He merely sets forth at length the standards for granting summary judgment and then conclusorily asserts that the standards were not met. He never even states what his claims are. Kostishak asserts in his brief that he was pro se below and thus we should be more forgiving than we normally would be before dismissing 3 II.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=04-1828.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
<SPAN STYLE=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/7E9D19A55491575988256AD3000B592B/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/may99/97-2378.man.html">JONES V. CANNON (5/11/1999, NO. 97-2378)<BR></A><BR>
FACTUAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiff Jonathan Dye Jones was arrested. Defendant Lee Cannon was the Sheriff of Pasco County during the investigation. One of whom was Plaintiff Jones.</P> <P> During that interview on November 24. That she may have bled on him. That she never was in his car.</P> <P> Later. Jones told Powers he could not remember at what time he was with Murphy. Jones told Powers he was with Murphy sometime around 11 or 11:30 p.m. Jones admitted he was with Murphy around 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. She was cooking in her kitchen.</P> <P> At that point. Detective Powers claims to have stopped the conversation so that he could call the state attorney's office. The state attorney reportedly told Powers that there was no probable cause and that he and Bishop should leave. Powers claims to have told Jones that he and Bishop were leaving and would call with the test results. Jones says that Powers told him he was taking Jones to the Sheriff's Office as a suspect. Jones claims he thought he was being arrested.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit//may99/97-2378.man.html">JONES V. CANNON (5/11/1999, NO. 97-2378)<BR></A><BR>
FACTUAL BACKGROUND</CENTER> </P> <P> Plaintiff Jonathan Dye Jones was arrested. Defendant Lee Cannon was the Sheriff of Pasco County during the investigation. One of whom was Plaintiff Jones.</P> <P> During that interview on November 24. That she may have bled on him. That she never was in his car.</P> <P> Later. Jones told Powers he could not remember at what time he was with Murphy. Jones told Powers he was with Murphy sometime around 11 or 11:30 p.m. Jones admitted he was with Murphy around 1:30 a.m. or 2:00 a.m. She was cooking in her kitchen.</P> <P> At that point. Detective Powers claims to have stopped the conversation so that he could call the state attorney's office. The state attorney reportedly told Powers that there was no probable cause and that he and Bishop should leave. Powers claims to have told Jones that he and Bishop were leaving and would call with the test results. Jones says that Powers told him he was taking Jones to the Sheriff's Office as a suspect. Jones claims he thought he was being arrested.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/044628p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Judge Roth assumed senior status. ** This case was argued before the panel of Judges Fuentes. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (Filed: June 7. Was fired after she signed her name to a pro choice advertisement in the local newspaper. Curay Cramer asserts both that signing the advertisement was conduct protected by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 3(a) and that she was fired for conduct less egregious under Catholic doctrine than conduct of male employees who were treated less harshly. We will affirm but. I. Factual Background Ursuline Academy is a private. That right is under 3 attack. We urge all Delawareans and elected officials at every level to be vigilant in the fight to ensure that women now and in the future have the right to choose. Following the text were the names of the individuals endorsing it. Curay Cramer was called into the office of Barbara C. Griffin informed Curay Cramer that the school was deeply troubled by her public support of a position inimical to accepted Catholic doctrine and that Griffin was considering terminating Curay Cramer's employment with the school.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/043866np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Filed this suit against the Board and certain of its supervisors and executives alleging he was the victim of unlawful retaliation in violation Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I. Facts and Procedural History The facts recited in the light most favorable to Zappan are as follows. 2 Zappan was promoted to Deputy District Director of the Board's Philadelphia District. Jones was promoted by the Board to Deputy District Director of the Board's Allentown District. The Commission found that the procedure used to promote Jones was improper and. Any individual under his watch who was not performing his job to standard. Zappan alleges that Jones' demands were directed at Parole Supervisor Henry 3 Watkins. Rankin are African American. Young is Caucasian. Rankin were plaintiffs in the aforementioned race discrimination lawsuit. Robinson and Scicchitano each informed Zappan that they were unaware of the settlement agreement to which he referred. Zappan testified that Scicchitano further reminded him he was not mandated to comply with any of Jones' demands and he should put any objection he had to the discipline at issue in writing.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/00a0148p-06.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Issue 3 In this case we are called upon to decide whether or not the official motto of the State of Ohio.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Jan1995/94a0944p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Circuit Judge: This appeal is before the court for rehearing in banc to clarify the proper standard for a jury charge in a pretext case alleging age discrimination.[fn1] Defendant Insurance Company of North America (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2004/06/03-3145.htm">03-3145 -- CUENCA V. UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS -- 06/15/2004<BR></A><BR>
Some of which are devoid. That it should have drawn in his favor. <u>Id.</u> at 21
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=92-2302.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The district court found that plaintiff's suit was barred by her failure to comply with the 30 day limitations period set forth in the Civil Service Reform Act (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/1999/07/98-1012.htm">98-1012 -- MILLER V. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO -- 07/19/1999<BR></A><BR>
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="499"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/67547D3475EB792488256E5A00707CEC/$file/0035041.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Apply 13779 the Pullman doctrine to vacate and remand the claims of the remaining Appellants with instructions to stay further proceedings until the Washington state courts have had the opportunity to consider the merits of the issues raised in the complaint under that state's law. I BACKGROUND Appellants Bernard and Jean Shaw (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199906/98-7068a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With him on the briefs were David E. Were on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Fannie Mae claims that Martini's Title VII suit was untimely because she initiated it less than 180 days after she filed discrimina tion charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission. Since Martini's claims on cross appeal are fully briefed and likely to arise again in a new trial. Holding first that frontpay is not subject to Title VII's cap on compensatory damages. Second that the district court should have reallocated the portion of Title VII damages above the statutory cap to Martini's recovery under D.C. law. She was earning $71. Excluding her from meetings to which she should have been invited. Kobayashi was asked by Knight to reorganize his department. That [an appropriate Commission official] has determined that it is probable that the Commis sion will be unable to complete its administrative processing of the charge within 180 days from the filing of the charge.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/07/01/061414P.pdf">N:\DOCS\E-DOS\1-22\06-1414.CHALFANT V. TITAN.FINAL.OPN.RWG.WPD<BR></A><BR>
All Quintak employees who wanted to work at Titan were required to apply for a position with Titan and have a qualifying physical. Jerry Williams was Chalfant's direct supervisor. Martin Craig Warren was Williams's supervisor. Chalfant was 56 1/2 years old and had been working for Quintak for five years. He believed that this position would have the same duties and responsibilities with Titan as it did with Quintak. Chalfant stated on a Voluntary Applicant Identification Survey that he was physically handicapped. Was conducted by Dr. Sciorrota also wrote on the exam record that Chalfant would need to have a functional capacity examination if he was required to do heavy lifting. Williams told Chalfant that he was included in a list of Quintak employees to be retained by Titan. His wages were half of what he earned at Quintak. Titan said that Chalfant had a conditional offer of employment before the physical examination that was withdrawn after he failed the physical. Titan claimed that Chalfant was not hired as a second shift supervisor because the entire second shift was going to be eliminated.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=95-2027.01A">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
With whom Rosalinda Pesquera and Mary Jo Mendez were on brief. Bird & Hestres was on brief. Circuit Judge. was discharged from her job at Occidental International after complaining to her employer about being subjected to the sexual demands of a high level executive at Occidental's most important customer. The main issues presented by this appeal are whether the jury's verdict in favor of the customer dictates that the verdict against her employer be reversed. Whether the court's evidentiary and juror peremptory challenge rulings were correct. Whether the court's attorney's fees award was adequate. She was twice promoted. Was put in charge of overseeing the daily operations of her office in February of 1990. While she was never formally evaluated during her employment. Occidental's most important market was Puerto Rico. Its most important customer was the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/061315np.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
We will affirm. I. The parties are familiar with the facts. So we will only briefly revisit them here. When they were unable to repay their loans. We will refer to the Visconits in the plural. ECOA claims are subject to a two year statute of limitations. The ALJ concluded that the Viscontis' complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed before July 1. The ALJ noted that those letters did not mention the word
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://pacer.ca10.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=05-5064.wpd">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The question presented on appeal is whether a prevailing party in a class action civil rights lawsuit is entitled to attorney fees for post consent decree efforts that resulted in no court order or judgment. The district court held that such a party is not. Attorney fees are compensable for reasonable efforts to ensure that those mechanisms are properly functioning. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) was granted leave to intervene as a defendant. After extensive litigation the parties entered into a consent decree (the Decree) that was approved by the court on May 12. The Decree is a lengthy document with a number of provisions. Whose purpose is
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1507p.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That summary judgment was inappropriate because there was sufficient direct evidence of discrimination to create a material issue of fact as to the legitimacy of his discharge. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment. I. Credit Alliance is a commercial finance company that lends money to its customers for the lease or purchase of capital equipment. Frederick Keller was an Executive Vice President and Director of Credit Alliance. His primary responsibility was to raise the funds that Credit Alliance intended to lend to its customers. Keller became responsible for raising capital when Credit Alliance was sold in September of 1989 by First Interstate Bancorp to the ORIX Group. When Credit Alliance was owned by First Interstate. ORIX arranged to have First Interstate continue to provide working capital until Credit Alliance achieved financial independence. Keller was responsible for spearheading the effort to acquire sufficient funding to achieve Credit Alliance's goal of financial independence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.kscourts.org/ca10/cases/2001/08/00-3087.htm">00-3087 -- HINSDALE V. ANDERSON -- 08/28/2001<BR></A><BR>
<a href=
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1CC1857ADC92685D882570C100795CAA/$file/0356259.pdf?openelement">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
Residents and registered voters in the Santa Ana Unified School District (
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="497"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb1997/97a1507a.txt">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
That summary judgment was inappropriate because there was sufficient direct evidence of discrimination to create a material issue of fact as to the legitimacy of his discharge. We will reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment. I. Credit Alliance is a commercial finance company that lends money to its customers for the lease or purchase of capital equipment. Frederick Keller was an Executive Vice President and Director of Credit Alliance. His primary responsibility was to raise the funds that Credit Alliance intended to lend to its customers. Keller became responsible for raising capital when Credit Alliance was sold in September of 1989 by First Interstate Bancorp to the ORIX Group. When Credit Alliance was owned by First Interstate. ORIX arranged to have First Interstate continue to provide working capital until Credit Alliance achieved financial independence. Keller was responsible for spearheading the effort to acquire sufficient funding to achieve Credit Alliance's goal of financial independence.
</TD>
</TR>
<TR CLASS="swhit">
<TD CLASS="swrank"><IMG SRC="/usca/images/score-4.gif" ALT="495"></TD>
<TD CLASS="swtitle"><A HREF="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/052275p.pdf">OPINION/ORDER</A><BR>
The appropriate remedy is the granting of a defense motion for a more definite statement under Federal Rule 12(e). We will vacate the District Court's order insofar as it relates to qualified immunity and remand to the District Court with instructions to order the plaintiffs to file a more definite statement. We will reverse the District Court's order denying defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1986 against Wendy Potts Fleegal and the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1986 against S |
