Maren K.,1 Complainant, v. Ryan D. McCarthy, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

5 Cited authorities

  1. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,671 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
  2. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,625 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
  3. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,302 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
  4. Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.405   Cited 83 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
  5. Section 1614.403 - How to appeal

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.403   Cited 34 times
    Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC