Jack C. Stoller v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the Army

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that a policy or practice is required before a continuing violation will be found
• noting under Title VII, limits for filing may be tolled if employee did not know or have reason to know that an employment decision was discriminatory in nature
• “Otherwise an organization could separate illegal motive from de-cisionmaking responsibility, contrary to the principle that Title VII applies to the employer as an organization.”
• “A Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle for introducing entirely new claims into an action.”
• “Under Title VII, if an employee did not at the time know or have reason to know that an employment decision was discriminatory in nature, the time limits for filing an administrative complaint may be tolled.”
• “a series of allegedly discriminatory actions against the same employee, even with the same alleged motive such as sex discrimination, is not enough” to invoke the “continuing violation” doctrine

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).