Oil Well Supply Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Winfield

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that, “[i]n interpreting its Human Rights Act[,] the District of Columbia . . . generally seems ready to accept the federal constructions of Title VII, given the substantial similarity between it and the [DCHRA]”
• explaining that, “[i]n interpreting its Human Rights Act[,] the District of Columbia . . . generally seems ready to accept the federal constructions of Title VII, given the substantial similarity between it and the [DCHRA]”
• explaining that, “[i]n interpreting its Human Rights Act the District of Columbia . . . generally seems ready to accept the federal constructions of Title VII, given the substantial similarity between it and the D.C. Human Rights Act”
• explaining that, “[i]n 8 interpreting its Human Rights Act the District of Columbia . . . generally seems ready to accept the federal constructions of Title VII, given the substantial similarity between it and the D.C. Human Rights Act”
• noting that District of Columbia courts follow the burden-shifting test applicable to Title VII claims when evaluating DCHRA claims and “seem[] ready to accept the federal constructions of Title VII, given the substantial similarity between it and the [DCHRA]”
• applying the McDonnell Douglas test “[i]n interpreting [the D.C.] Human Rights Act ... given the substantial similarity between [Title VII] and the D.C. Human Rights Act”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).