Skip to main content
Fifth Circuit· 7/24/2000

Williams v. Trader Publishing Co.

Citations

  • 218 F.3d 481
  • 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 17720
  • 79 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 40,256
  • 83 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 668
  • 2000 WL 913456

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that plaintiff’s testimony was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict where plaintiff testified regarding her lack of sleep, weight loss, and new smoking habit
  • finding that a district court’s imposition of a higher rate than the federal rate to make a plaintiff whole in a Title VII case was not clear error
  • noting that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate identity of circumstance as she was unable to show that her male counterparts had a pattern of disruptive behavior similar to hers
  • “Since compensatory damages for emotional distress are necessarily vague and are generally considered a fact issue for the jury, they may not be amenable to the kind of calculation disclosure contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)[(A)(iii)].”
  • “Since compensatory 10 damages for emotional distress are necessarily vague and are generally considered a 11 fact issue for the jury, they may not be amenable to the kind of calculation disclosure 12 contemplated by Rule 26(a)(1)(C).”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Jones, Barksdale, Dennis

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

39 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.