Skip to main content
· 2/10/1986

Feng v. Sandrik

Citations

  • 636 F. Supp. 77
  • 41 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 922
  • 27 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1417
  • 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29455
  • 41 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 36,632

How courts have described this case

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

  • acknowledging that “spouses of individuals who have been victimized by employment discrimination cannot be said to fall within the class of persons Title VII was intended to protect”
  • stating that § 255 applied to claims under § 215, in case where plaintiff had not argued otherwise but had contended that the limitations period had been tolled

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Aspen

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.