Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Service Temps Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Rule 9(c) “requires that a party must deny the occurrence or performance of a condition precedent, with particularity, in the operative pleadings”
• holding that because injunctive relief is presumptively appropriate once a violation of Title VII is proven, “we need not address [the defendant’s argument] that there was an ‘absence of any evidence’ to support the EEOC’s request for injunctive relief”
• noting that the defendants’ knowledge of the relevant facts “accents [their] inability to explain the delay”
• affirming that the district court had acted within its discretion in denying leave to amend because the plaintiff’s “reasonable suspicion” of a potential claim “accent[ed] [the plaintiff’s] inability to explain the delay” in asking for leave to amend
• explaining that when a party moving to amend the scheduling order “does not address the good cause standard under Rule 16(b)(4), this court typically denies the motion for that reason alone”
• affirming a district court’s determination that the defendant’s failure to account for its delay was dispositive, outweighing the other three factors

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).