No. 03-1433: Rann V. Choa - Opposition On September 2, 1999, petitioner filed suit under the age discrimination in 6 The government s concession in Stevens, 500 us at 9, that a federal http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2004/0responses/2003-1433.resp.html
Extractions: QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the court of appeals correctly read the plain language of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations to require alleged victims of discrimination to file a notice of intent to sue directly with the Commission when they intend to forego the administrative grievance process. 2. Whether the court of appeals correctly determined that petitioner was not entitled to bring a suit to challenge the results of the administrative grievance process because he failed to respond to agency requests for information and therefore did not exhaust his administrative remedies. In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-1433
Nos. 98-796 And 98-791: United States V. Kimel - Reply (Merits) As respondents frequently remind us, all 50 States proscribe age 17 See gov t Br. 18 n.18; age discrimination in Employment Act Amendments Hearing http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1999/3mer/2mer/98-0796.mer.rep.html
Extractions: When Congress in 1974 extended to state employees the protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., Congress also expressed its clear intent to abrogate the States' immunity to suits under both the ADEA and the wage and hour provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq. Congress did so, inter alia, by amending the FLSA to authorize employees to file suit "against any employer (including a public agency) in any Federal or State court of competent jurisdiction," 29 U.S.C. 216(b) (emphasis added), and by expressly incorporating that provision into the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. 626(b).
Extractions: That Affect Personnel Management Various regulations and laws exist pertaining to employess. If you plan to hire individuals to work for you, some understanding of the rules that apply to your business are necessary. Federal laws, depending on your sales volume and number of employees, may supercede state laws. The following list is representative of the types of regulations and laws that may govern your business operations. Consult with the state and federal Department of Labor to learn more. An attorney's guidance can be useful in assisting you as you meet legal requirements during the establishment of your business venture. Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940-12950 us gov Sites, Mailing List Archives, Sup Court 1893+, us fed Circuits (3) Nothing in this part relating to discrimination on account of marital http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/malos_s/FEHA CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12940-12
Age Discrimination - Opposition To MSJ Plaintiff filed a complaint charging age discrimination with the fed. Rules Civ. Proc., rule 56; Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 us 317, 322323 (1986). http://www.quojure.com/samples/archives/agedisc.htm
Extractions: Return to Quo Jure Archives This archival document has not been updated, and WE DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS STILL GOOD LAW. We do not warrant the accuracy or currency of the information it contains. We hope you will find it useful in evaluating the nature and quality of our work, but we ask that you not make further use of it for any other purpose. To preserve our original customer's confidences we have "sanitized" this document by changing names and factual details, and by deleting all references to the record. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOE SMITH, Plaintiff, v. GROCERIES, LTD., JOHN GREEN, MARY JONES, HARRY BROWN, FRANK SMITH and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Joe Smith oppose defendants' motion for summary judgment defendants on the grounds that he has evidence that will raise a triable issue of fact regarding whether defendants' alleged reason for terminating him was a mere pretext. FACTS Plaintiff has worked for defendant Groceries, Ltd., at its store in Anytown, California, for 25 years. After he was promoted in his fourth year of employment, he worked as a journeyman grocery clerk until his termination. In that period, defendant Groceries, Ltd. never disciplined plaintiff and he never took time off for illness. As a result, plaintiff had accumulated a significant number of personal and sick days. When he was dismissed, plaintiff was 40 years old.
Legal Links Best of the Internet Selected by Librarians; Calalog of us gov t Science and age discrimination · 5 Items. Civil Rights Center; Cornell Legal Info http://webpages.uah.edu/~woodwaw/ooch/zwebview.html
Extractions: Legal Links for College and University Attorneys Compiled and maintained by Bill Woodward Please send comments, corrections, additions, etc. to mailto:woodwaw@email.uah.edu This site is not connected with, authorized by, sponsored by, nor approved by the University of Alabama System or the University of Alabama in Huntsville in any way and makes no representations of any affiliation whatsoever with either. These links are arranged by categories. Any category with an entry reflecting the number of entries can be collapsed by left clicking on the category description and expanded by left clicking on that description again. Clicking on a link under a category will take you to a table entry which restates the entry's name under the heading "Subject" and has a corresponding entry entitled "Document" on the right. Under the Document heading will always be a link which you may left click on to go to the location. In many cases, under that link will be a short description of what is available at that link. Above the "Subject" entry will be an entry "Top" which returns you to the link from which you came. It may also contain entries for "Next" and "Previous" which allow you to navigate through the table entries without returning the category listing. All of the links and descriptions are on a single page. While this makes the initial download take longer, it allows you to
Brennan V. GTE Gov't Sys. Corp. (7/16/1998, No. 97-2015) As part of his age discrimination case, Brennan alleged evidentiary errors, See Burdine, 450 us at 255 n.10. Brennan offers the following evidence to http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/july98/97-2015.01a.html
Extractions: United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 97-2015 DANIEL F. BRENNAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge Before Torruella, Chief Judge Coffin and Bownes, Senior Circuit Judges Paul M. Stein with whom Thomas O. Moriarty was on brief for appellant. Arthur G. Telegen with whom Michael L. Rosen and Tracey E. Spruce were on brief for appellee. COFFIN, Senior Circuit Judge I. Factual Background Brennan began working at GTE in 1973 as a senior technician and later held a series of different engineering positions. In 1986, he accepted a position as an integration and test engineer in the Mobile Subscriber Equipment System ("MSE") division. Created in 1986, the MSE division developed in response to a contract between GTE and the United States Army for a comprehensive communications system. In mid 1992, the division was reorganized and Brennan was assigned to work in the Circuit Switching and Systems Control department, headed by John Van Dolman. His job as an integration and test engineer involved designing and overseeing the MSE testing process.
FR Doc 03-17738 3046AA72 age discrimination in Employment Act; Retiree Health Benefits ageNCY us SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section 9 of the age discrimination in http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2003/03-17738.htm
Academic Discrimination Resource Page Text age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) CA Attorney Generl Discrim in non-fed. Employment us Department of Education http://home.sandiego.edu/~mmorse/discrim/prevent_academic_discrimination.shtml
Extractions: modified: 2/26/97 The page was prepared by a layperson (not a lawyer.) The information provided is intended to help individuals confronted with discrimination or harassment to learn their rights, to gain access to the appropriate laws, and to find pathways for resolution. There is no guarantee of the legal accuracy or legal currency of the information provided. If you feel that you are the victim of illegal discrimination which can't be resolved expeditiously (to your satisfaction) through informal channels, immediately seek the guidance of legal counsel. These are LEGAL matters which have STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS (some as short as 180 days.) Don't let time foreclose your rights to seek resolution through administrative and legal channels.
Fed-Soc.org - Federalism News 2000 The employee sued for age discrimination and the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the This morning (January 11, 2000) the us Supreme Court will hear oral http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/practicegroupnewsletters/federalism/News 200
Extractions: Federalism News 2000 December 21 November 21 November 3 October 24 ... February 2000 December 21, 2000 November 21, 2000 I am writing about a Federalism case that might be of interest to your members. It is a constitutional challenge to the portion the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized persons Act of 2000 ( RLUIPA) that regulates state prisons. I would also like to solicit amicus support. RLUIPA is a limited reenactment of the former Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the act that was struck down in City of Boerne v. Flores. Unlike RFRA, RLUIPA only applies to prisons and land use decisions and its prison provisions are based on the spending and commerce clauses, rather than ' 5 of the 14th amendment.
Labor & Employment Law Cases From LexisNexis The us Supreme Court held that the age discrimination in Employment Act does not prohibit Chao (PDF, 68K), 2004 us App. LEXIS 2064 (fed. Cir. 2004). http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/labor/labor_cases.asp
Extractions: Sign on to your service LexisNexis at lexis.com LexisNexis at nexis.com LexisNexis by Credit Card Academic Accurint AlaCarte Analyzer Anti-Money Laundering Solutions Automated Forms Collection Solutions Congressional Corporate Legal CourtLink CourtLink Strategic Profiles Daily Opinion Service Development Pro Environmental Europe Web Product Gov Periodicals Index InstantID Insurance Solutions Intranet Solutions Law Schools Law Enforcement Solutions lexisONE Market Intelligence Martindale-Hubbell Matthew Bender Online Mealey's Free Legal News Mealey's Online PeopleWise.net PowerInvoice Primary Sources in U.S. History Professional Development Center Publisher Risk Management Solutions RiskWise Scholastic Edition State Capital Statistical Telnet Connection
Federal Contracts Report Index-Summary age discrimination. Flight services contracting out decision, Natl. GAO Audit of the Financial Report of us gov t, House gov t Reform Comm. hearing, http://www.bna.com/current/fcr/topa.htm
Extractions: Acquisition Advisory Panel (Section 1423) formed, first meeting scheduled, 83:85; status box, 83:96; panel scheduled to meet, 83:155; panel urged to extend federal employee ethics rule to contractors, 83:225; panel scheduled to meet, working groups established, 83:256; status box, 83:270; meetings scheduled, status box, 83:419; industry task force calls to changes in law and regulation to improve services acquisition, 83:509; meeting scheduled, 84:36; performance-based contracting training needed, witnesses tell panel, 84:64; meeting scheduled, 84:69; 84:147
Extractions: FTA-Only October 1, 2002 (used for FTA Awards of Federal Financial Assistance) From the Administrator New Starts Strategic Business Plan Grant Programs ... United We Ride YOU ARE HERE: Home Grant Programs Applying for and Managing Grants FTA-Grantee Sample Agreements ... October 1, 2002 (used for FTA Awards of Federal Financial Assistance) 1. Transportation Legislation. a. Federal transit laws codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 53 (Sections 5301 et seq b. Title 23, United States Code (Highways). 2. FTA Programs et seq 3. Type of Award 4. Eligibility for Award. a. Various provisions of FTA and FHWA enabling legislation. 5. Lobbying b. Section 325 of the DOT Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. 107-87, Dec. 18, 2001, restricting lobbying of Congress and state legislatures. 6. Planning and Private Enterprise a. Joint Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)/FTA regulations, "Planning Assistance and Standards," at 23 C.F.R. Part 450 and 49 C.F.R. Part 613. b. Joint FHWA/FTA regulations, "Management and Monitoring Systems," 23 C.F.R. Parts 500 and 626, and 49 C.F.R. Part 614.
Extractions: The decision of the Authority follows: 52 FLRA No. 127 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY WASHINGTON, D.C. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION CHAPTER 168 (Union) and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE NEW ORLEANS DISTRICT (Agency) 0-AR-2751 DECISION April 30, 1997 Before the Authority: Phyllis N. Segal, Chair; and Donald S. Wasserman, Member. This matter is before the Authority on exceptions to an award of Arbitrator Stephen L. Hayford filed by the Union under section 7122(a) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute) and part 2425 of the Authority's Regulations. The Agency did not file an opposition to the Union's exceptions. The Arbitrator sustained, in part, a grievance alleging that the Grievant's involuntary reassignment from Lake Charles, Louisiana to New Orleans was disciplinary and not implemented in accordance with the parties' collective bargaining agreement. As a remedy, he directed that the reassignment be rescinded and any record of the action be expunged. The Arbitrator denied the remainder of the grievance, including, as relevant here, claims that the Grievant was reassigned in retaliation for a sexual harassment complaint and whistleblower complaints filed by the Grievant against his immediate supervisor. For the following reasons, we conclude that the Union has failed to establish that the award is deficient under section 7122(a) of the Statute. Accordingly, we deny the Union's exceptions.
Discrimination, Harassment, And Retaliation Several years ago a relative (fed gov employee) was hurt on the job/had 2 If you believe that you are the victim of age discrimination contact your http://boards.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/WebX.fcgi?14@143.XXuxcoPcpX8^0@.ef05d02/317
Due To The Nature Of HTML Formatting There May Be Some Formatting Footnote A plaintiff may demonstrate age discrimination by either direct or indirect Burdine, 450 us at 253). To establish a prima facie case of age http://www.iand.uscourts.gov/iand/decisions.nsf/0/c87a0e4e30bfafa186256d7300787b
SMITH V. CITY OF JACKSON The age discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 usC § 621 et seq., confers upon 1975); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 us 424 (1971). 46 fed. http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1160.ZC.html
Extractions: APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT [March 30, 2005] Justice Scalia, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chevron U.S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 See General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline, 540 U.S. 581 This is an absolutely classic case for deference to agency interpretation. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), et seq. (d) (2004). See Laugesen v. Anaconda Corp. , 510 F.2d 307 (6th Cir. 1975); Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 ante , at 10; (f)(1)(i) (1970). And finally, the Commission has appeared in numerous cases in the lower courts, both as a party and as amicus curiae , to defend the position that the ADEA authorizes disparate-impact claims.
Extractions: U.S. Department of Labor www.dol.gov Search / A-Z Index Find It!: By Topic By Audience By Top 20 Requested Items By Form ... By Location September 18, 2005 DOL Home Find It! By Topic EEO Find It! By Topic Equal Employment Opportunity Executive Order 11246 prohibits covered federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity without regard to those factors. E.O. 11246 is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This law is enforced by the Civil Rights Center Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This law is enforced by the
Extractions: The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Facts About Federal Sector Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Processing Regulations (29 CFR Part 1614) The statutes enforced by EEOC make it illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age. A person who files a complaint or participates in an investigation of an EEO complaint, or who opposes an employment practice made illegal under any of the statutes enforced by EEOC, is protected from retaliation. In addition to laws that EEOC enforces, there are federal protections from discrimination on other bases including sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status, political affiliation, and conduct that does not adversely affect the performance of the employee. EEOC's policy is to seek full and effective relief for each and every victim of discrimination. The remedies may include: posting a notice to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation; corrective or preventive actions taken to cure or correct the source of the identified discrimination;
