38 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1685, 38 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,604 Silas J. Alexander v. Chicago Park District

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that order satisfied Rule 54(b) where it lacked express determination and direction but parties clearly knew of their right to appeal
• \[W]e hold that private actions based on Title VI may not be brought under sec. 1983.\
• Congress intended to retain preexisting remedies but if right was created by Title VII, it must be vindicated through procedural system set up by Act
• plaintiffs conceded that their Section 1983 claim was based on alleged violations of a statute that \provides its own remedial scheme\
• appeal entertained where court’s Order did not technically comply with Rule 54(b) but court’s intent was clear
• in dicta, commenting that order was sufficiently final for res judicata purposes even if not appealable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).