Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Clay Printing Company

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the EEOC’s loss at the“summary judgment stage supported the determination that the EECC’s position was not substantially justified under EAJA
• noting that the dissenting judge’s views should be “considered” but not given dispositive weight
• U.S. Government could be assessed attorney’s fees under Equal Access to Justice Act for frivolous ADEA claim
• “Until another statute ‘specifically provide[s]’ that ADEA defendants cannot get such fees from the United States, the plain language of the EAJA will continue to control.”
• “We agree that the dissenting judge’s 9 views should be considered, but this factor alone (and it is alone) is not enough to convince us that the district court’s assessment of the case constituted an abuse of discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).