Artimese A. Epps, et al.1 Class Agent and Complainant, v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 241,064 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,495 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Teamsters v. United States
431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,643 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile
Castaneda v. Partida
430 U.S. 482 (1977) Cited 1,239 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the respondent's showing "that the population of the county was 79.1% Mexican-American, but that, over an 11-year period, only 39% of the persons summoned for grand jury service were Mexican-American" established a prima facie case of discrimination against Mexican-Americans in the county's grand jury selection process
Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp.
846 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1988) Cited 413 times
Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer
Phillips v. Joint Legislative Comm.
637 F.2d 1014 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 308 times
Holding recusal not necessary despite improper remarks to parties in previous cases
Equal Emp't Opportunity v. Am. Nat. Bank
652 F.2d 1176 (4th Cir. 1981) Cited 177 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that EEOC's conciliation efforts regarding discriminatory practices at one branch office were sufficient to cover claims of similar discrimination at another branch
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,024 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Artimese A. Epps, et al.1 Class Agent and Complainant, v. Mike Johanns, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile

Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer

Holding recusal not necessary despite improper remarks to parties in previous cases

Holding that EEOC's conciliation efforts regarding discriminatory practices at one branch office were sufficient to cover claims of similar discrimination at another branch

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"