Manos v. Geissler

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 first factor weighs in favor of the unnamed party where its role could be ascertained by the plaintiff at the time the EEOC charge was filed
• finding that third factor favored unnamed defendant where unnamed defendant was prevented from participating in EEOC settlement talks
• holding no FACA committee existed where meeting attendees providing individual, as opposed to collective, advice
• finding that the first factor weighed in favor of the unnamed party when the plaintiff knew that the named party was a franchisee of the unnamed party
• finding that the unnamed party was prejudiced when “[t]he EEOC tried to resolve th[e] matter as evidenced by the [s]ettlement [a]greement” and the unnamed party “had no involvement in the settlement[] and the alleged discrimination continued”
• “Plaintiff has not alleged any facts that demonstrate that Midas ‘exercised such complete dominion and control’ that BRG lacked independent will.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).