Skip to main content
Seventh Circuit· 6/26/1996

Yuri D. Veprinsky v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.

Citations

  • 87 F.3d 881
  • 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 15323
  • 68 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,140
  • 71 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 170
  • 1996 WL 348212

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that in interpreting the scope of a cause of action “we begin with the plain language of the statute we are called upon to apply”
  • explaining that in interpreting the scope of a cause of action “we begin with the plain language of the statute we are called upon to apply”
  • noting that the FLSA’s retaliation provision is “parallel” to those of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d)
  • reversing summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings on this issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Ripple, Manton, Rovner

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

78 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.