Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 1/11/2011

Artis v. Bernanke

Citations

  • 630 F.3d 1031
  • 394 U.S. App. D.C. 84
  • 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 519
  • 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,078
  • 111 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 300
  • 2011 WL 67594

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that Title VII claims are subject to a non-jurisdictional exhaustion requirement
  • noting that “failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not jurisdictional under current precedents” unless the statute contains a clear statement to that effect
  • counseling serves its purpose if it “produces ‘sufficient information to enable the agency to investigate the claim.’ ”
  • applying the principle to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, the statute addressing discrimination in federal government employment
  • noting “that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is not jurisdictional under current precedents”
  • “An agency risks misusing' the counseling requirement when it demands excessively detailed support” for an EEO claim.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Brown, Griffith, Kavanaugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

97 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Artis v. Bernanke

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.