Pacheco v. Mineta

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that courts review scope of administrative complaint was “fact-specific” to determine what investigation that complaint “can reasonably be expected to trigger”
• holding that “Rule 54(d)(1) contains a strong presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded costs”
• holding that a plaintiff need not “recite a specific incantation to exhaust his or her administrative remedies before the proper agency”
• holding that an employee failed to exhaust a claim of disparate impact because the EEOC charge alleged only disparate treatment and identified no neutral employment policy
• holding that the prima facie case is relevant for determining whether an investigation would reasonably be expected to grow out of the facts alleged in an EEOC charge
• holding that allegations of only past disparate treatment and no identification of a neutral employment policy could not lead to an EEOC investigation into disparate-impact discrimination sufficient to satisfy the administrative exhaustion requirement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).