Mia Macy, Complainant, v. Eric Holder, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), Agency.

28 Cited authorities

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,281 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson
477 U.S. 57 (1986) Cited 6,586 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
490 U.S. 228 (1989) Cited 4,647 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"
Auto. Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
499 U.S. 187 (1991) Cited 358 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination"
Johnson v. Transportation Agency
480 U.S. 616 (1987) Cited 382 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that an affirmative action plan provides a legitimate reason for a hiring decision that considers race or ethnicity
Smith v. City of Salem
378 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 705 times 21 Legal Analyses
Holding that Title VII prohibits sex stereotyping
Schwenk v. Hartford
204 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 679 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding the law was clearly established because no reasonable prison guard could have believed it was lawful to "enter the cell of a prisoner ... unzip his pants, expose himself, demand oral sex, and then, after being refused, grab the prisoner, push her up against the bars of the cell, and grind his naked penis into her buttocks"
Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Enters., Inc.
256 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 569 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding employer liable where its "solution" failed "to deter future harassment"
Higgins v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.
194 F.3d 252 (1st Cir. 1999) Cited 541 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that when an employee with a disability is injured by his employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, no additional showing of animus against persons with disabilities is required for ADA liability
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.
400 U.S. 542 (1971) Cited 259 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that it violates Title VII for an employer to have “one hiring policy for women and another for men—each having pre-school-age children.”
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"

Mia Macy, Complainant, v. Eric Holder, Attorney General, Department of Justice, (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), Agency.

28 Cited authorities

Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

Holding that sexual harassment may be actionable under Title VII as discrimination on the basis of sex if it is sufficiently severe and pervasive

Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"

Holding that "[w]hether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination"

Holding that an affirmative action plan provides a legitimate reason for a hiring decision that considers race or ethnicity

Holding that Title VII prohibits sex stereotyping

Holding employer liable where its "solution" failed "to deter future harassment"

Holding that when an employee with a disability is injured by his employer's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation, no additional showing of animus against persons with disabilities is required for ADA liability

Holding that it violates Title VII for an employer to have “one hiring policy for women and another for men—each having pre-school-age children.”

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