Federal Case

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the TCPA's definition of ‘person’ prefaces its list with the word ‘includes.’ This term ‘suggests Congress was being illustrative rather than exclusive with the list following the phrase’”
• concluding that “the TCPA's definition of ‘person’ prefaces its list with the word ‘includes.’ This term ‘suggests Congress was being illustrative rather than exclusive with the list following the phrase’”
• concluding that “the TCPA's definition of ‘person’ prefaces its list with the word ‘includes.’ This term ‘suggests Congress was being illustrative rather than exclusive with the list following the phrase’”
• concluding that “the TCPA's definition of ‘person’ prefaces its list with the word ‘includes.’ This term ‘suggests Congress was being illustrative rather than exclusive with the list following the phrase’”
• finding that EEOC “policy statement[s] or enforcement guideline[s]” are -11- “respect[ed] . . . ‘only to the extent that those interpretations have the “power to persuade”’” (quoting Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000))
• when an employer’s action is not based on a sex classification, it is not a sex-based violation of Title VII

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).