Elkadrawy v. Vanguard Group, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• determining that new allegations arose from the same cause of action when they were “indisputably connected” to the prior suit
• advising that the same cause of action analysis “does not depend on the specific legal theory invoked, but rather ‘the essential similarity of the underlying events giving rise to the various legal claims.’”
• explaining that “it does not matter for res judicata purposes that Elkadrawy proceeds under § 1981 rather than Title VII” because the “allegations set forth . . . [in] his second complaint are indistinguishable from the allegations in his first complaint”
• “Section 2000e–5(f)(1) requires that claims brought under Title VII be filed within ninety days of the claimant’s receipt of the EEOC right to sue letter.”
• “[R]es judicata bars not only claims that were brought in the previous action, but also claims that could have been brought.”
• “Section 2000e–5(f)(1) requires that claims brought under Title VII be filed within ninety days of the claimant’s receipt of the EEOC right to sue letter.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).