Felecia G. Hughes v. Syscon Corp. Jack Watson Dennis Vaughn, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Felecia G. Hughes v. Syscon Corp. Jack Watson Dennis Vaughn, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
39 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner (cadc, 2016-08-26)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "see" Antoine Jones v. Steve Kirchner (2×)
D.C. Cir. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
But to the extent I need to make findings of fact, I find that this search was executed after 6”); see generally San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 , 336 n.16, 125 S.Ct. 2491 , 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (explaining that collateral estoppel applies only to “an issue of fact or law necessary to [the court’s] judgment”) (emphasis added). 8 Evanson v. United States, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.
cited Cited "see" Adler v. Vision Lab Telecommunications, Inc.
D.D.C. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., 832 F.Supp. 419, 425 (D.D.C.1993), vacated on other grounds, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.Cir.1996).
cited Cited "see" Advanced Communications Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission
D.C. Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Advanced Communications Corp. v. FCC, 84 F.3d 1452 , 1996 WL 250460 (D.C.Cir.
cited Cited "see" Advn Comm Corp v. FCC
D.C. Cir. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Advanced Communications Corp. v. FCC, 84 F.3d 1452 , 1996 WL 250460 (D.C.Cir.
cited Cited "see" Advanced Communications Corp. v. MCI Communications Corp.
8th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Advanced Communications Corp. v. FCC, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam) (unpublished table decision), memorandum reported at 1996 U.S.App.
cited Cited "see" Advanced Communications Corp. v. MCI Communications Corp.
8th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Advanced Communications Corp. v. FCC, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.
discussed Cited "see" Armstrong, Vanessa v. Accrdtng Cncl Educ
D.C. Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 425-26, 434 . 15 On appeal, this court found that the district court, having dismissed the federal claims, failed to "expressly exercise its discretion to maintain or decline jurisdiction over the pendant claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 ." Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Educ. & Training, Inc., 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.Cir.1996) (unpublished table decision), 1996 WL 250412, at * 1 .
cited Cited "see" Directv, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, MCI Telecommunications Corporation, Intervenors
D.C. Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See In the Matter of Advanced Communications Corp., 11 F.C.C.R. 3399 ¶6 (1995), aff’d, 84 F.3d 1452 (D.C.Cir.1996) (per curiam).
Felecia G. Hughes
v.
Syscon Corporation Jack Watson Dennis Vaughn
95-7031.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Jun 28, 1996.
84 F.3d 1452
Unpublished

84 F.3d 1452

318 U.S.App.D.C. 78

NOTICE: D.C. Circuit Local Rule 11(c) states that unpublished orders, judgments, and explanatory memoranda may not be cited as precedents, but counsel may refer to unpublished dispositions when the binding or preclusive effect of the disposition, rather than its quality as precedent, is relevant.
Felecia G. HUGHES, Appellant,
v.
SYSCON CORPORATION; Jack Watson; Dennis Vaughn.

No. 95-7031.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

April 15, 1996.
Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing In Banc Denied June 28, 1996.

Before: SILBERMAN, ROGERS, and TATEL, Circuit Judges.

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

1

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. The court has determined that the issues presented occasion no need for an opinion. See D.C.Cir.Rule 36(b). It is

2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's order filed January 17, 1995 be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded, in open court on January 13, 1995, that appellant failed to show that appellees' legitimate business reasons for eliminating appellant's position were a pretext for unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 290 (1982). Furthermore, because the hiring official for a subsequent job opening was unaware, according to his sworn declaration, of appellant's previous discrimination complaint and because appellant did not present evidence otherwise, appellant has not established a prima facie case of retaliation. Finally, the court need not consider appellant's claim, raised for the first time on appeal, that the district court should have delayed its ruling to enable appellant to obtain certain affidavits. See District of Columbia v. Air Florida, Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084-85 (D.C.Cir.1984).

3

The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 41.