Webb v. City of Philadelphia

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that courts of appeals generally do “not consider material [ ] that is outside of the district court record.”
• finding that a sex discrimination claim fell outside scope where plaintiff only filed a charge of religious discrimination with the EEOC
• holding, pre-Groff, that allowing a police officer to wear a hijab on duty would cause undue hardship by threatening the appearance that the police department was religiously neutral
• noting that although charges filed by pro se litigants are “to be interpreted in a non-technical fashion, the aggrieved party is not permitted to bypass the administrative process”
• noting that “the aggrieved party is not permitted to bypass the administrative process”
• finding vague assertions regarding potential exceptions insufficient to create an issue of material fact, as “neither officer presented any evidence of ‘who’ or ‘when,’ nor did either know whether the police department authorized or was even aware of the alleged occurrences.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).