Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that an employer’s oral statement that the CBA “was not in effect” sufficiently disavowed the existence of an implied-in-fact CBA under Luden’s
• holding that requiring plaintiffs to report the first instance of discriminatory conduct “would have the perverse effect of putting a greater burden on plaintiffs who had extensive evidence of discrimination.”
• holding that plaintiff’s loss of an office and the dismissal of her secretary, both of which were “specific, negotiated conditions” of plaintiff’s employment, constituted tangible adverse employment actions for purposes of plaintiff’s Title VII claims
• finding “Title VII may be applied” to events “triggered by sexual desire,” “sexually hostile” events, “non-sexual but gender-based” events, and “facially neutral” events
• finding adverse action where an employer denied the plaintiff access to files and objects that “were vital to her work,” thus causing a “significant disruption in [] her working conditions”
• affirming the finding of pervasive harassment where, within two years, the plaintiff, a female insurance agent: (1) was told that she “made too much money for a goddamn woman;” (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).