Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. United States Steel Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the EEOC from seeking \individualized benefits\ under the ADEA on behalf of individuals whose own suits were unsuccessful because the EEOC was \in privity\ with those individuals
• holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred the EEOC from seeking \individual- ized benefits\ under the ADEA on behalf of individuals whose own suits were unsuccessful because the EEOC was \in privity\ with those individuals
• stating that claim preclusion fosters reliance on prior judicial decisions by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent judgments
• determining that privity is satisfied when the agency “seeks individualized benefits under the ADEA for particular griev- ants”
• stating that claim preclusion fosters reliance on prior judicial decisions by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent judgments
• recognizing further that a party cannot “remain[] outside the judgment for res judicata purposes while at the same time seeking and enjoying its benefits”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).