Gwendolyn Howze v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

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 plaintiffs “new retaliation claim may fairly be considered [an] explanation [ ] of the original charge”
• holding that “[w]hether the actual EEOC investigation uncovered any evidence of retaliation is of no consequence” in determining whether a new claim of retaliation is encompassed in the original EEOC charge
• holding that “[w]hether the actual EEOC investigation uncovered any evidence of retaliation is of no consequence” in determining whether a new claim of retaliation is encompassed in the original EEOC charge
• holding that a question of fact regarding the termination of local state proceedings precluded the court from granting summary judgment, but recognizing that the 300 day filing period applies if the claimant initiated proceedings with the state agency
• holding in context of a motion to amend, “new retaliation claim may be fairly considered an explanation of the original charge”
• holding, in the context of a motion to amend, that a “new retaliation claim may be fairly considered an explanation of the original charge”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).