Skip to main content
Fourth Circuit· 8/19/1994

Balazs v. Liebenthal

Citations

  • 32 F.3d 151
  • 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 22600
  • 65 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 43,253
  • 65 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 993
  • 1994 WL 446030

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that a retaliation claim failed because the EEOC charge had “nothing to do with his race, color, religion, sex or national origin”
  • noting that defendant is prejudiced when it has to defend in court against charge that was never verified
  • finding once a right to sue letter has issued, there is no longer a charge pending before the EEOC
  • finding once a right to sue letter has issued, there is no longer a charge pending before the EEOC
  • “that [plaintiff] had been accused of doing something— sexually harassing his co-workers—which he did not do” had “nothing to do with his race, color, religion, sex or 15 national origin”
  • “An allegation that he was falsely accused of conduct which, if true, might have given rise to a claim of employment discrimination based on sex by someone else in no way states a cause of action that plaintiff himself was a victim of discrimination based on his sex.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Carolina, Dupree, Eastern, MacKenzie, Michael, Virginia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.