Fifth Circuit· 6/13/1986

Hamilton v. Rodgers

Citations

791 F.2d 439
40 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1814

How courts have described this case

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

defendants, who had authority over car assignments and staffing of shifts, were employers under Title VII
defendants, who had authority over car assignments and staffing of shifts, were employers under Title VII
plaintiff's estate failed to prove defendant's harassment was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's death
person is agent of employer if person participated in decision-making process that forms basis of discrimination and agent is individually liable
city held liable “only under Title VII” although sections 1981 and 1983 raised
where supervisors’ recommendations played a “critical” role in the decision to terminate plaintiff, both the supervisors and their employer could be held liable under Title VII

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Gee, Johnson, Parker

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

89 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Hamilton v. Rodgers

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

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.