green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.1 score
“it is only logical to limit the permissible scope of a civil employment discrimination action to the scope of the investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge of discrimination.”
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Peterson v. Archstone
it is only logical to limit the permissible scope of a civil employment discrimination action to the scope of the investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge of discrimination.
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. THE WASHINGTON TIMES
See Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“A Title VII lawsuit following the EEOC charge is limited in scope to claims that are ‘like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and growing out of such allegations.’ ”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Peterson v. Archstone
See Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“A Title VII lawsuit following the EEOC charge is limited in scope to claims that *127 are ‘like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and growing out of such allegations.’ ”) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996); Ivey v. District of Columbia, 949 A.2d 607, 615-16 (D.C.2008) (“It is only logical to limit the permissible scope of a civil employment discrimination action to the scope of the [EEOC] investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of a ch…
cited
Cited "see"
Murray v. John D. Archbold Memorial Hospital, Inc.
See Park v. Howard University, 71 F.3d 904 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hunt v. D.C. Department of Corrections
See Park v. Howard University, 71 F.3d 904, 906-07 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“A court cannot allow liberal interpretation of an administrative charge to permit a litigant to bypass the Title VII administrative process”), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
78 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 615, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,630 Brenda Shempert v. Harwick Chemical Corporation and Tom Breckenridge, Individually Lynne Gibel, Movant-Appellant. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
See Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 908-09 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996); EEOC v. Appalachian Power Co., 568 F.2d 354 , 355 (4th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
KNAUF INSULATION, LLC v. JOHNS MANVILLE CORPORATION
Under Rule 26(a), expert reports must be "detailed and complete." Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 Advisory Committee's note; see also Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 , 571 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 (1996).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Childers v. United States
P. 26 Advisory Committee’s note; see also Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 , 571 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S. Ct. 57 , 136 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nathan and Deborah Childers v. the United States 08-1981
RCFC 26(a)(2)(B). 70 The Seventh Circuit articulated the requirements for an expert report: Rule 26(a) expert reports must be “detailed and complete.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 Advisory Committee’s note; see also Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 , 571 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Childers v. United States
RCFC 26(a)(2)(B). 70 The Seventh Circuit articulated the requirements for an expert report: Rule 26(a) expert reports must be “detailed and complete.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 Advisory Committee’s note; see also Sierra Club v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 , 571 (5th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lassiter v. LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.
Plaintiff Failed to Exhaust her Administrative Remedies Regarding her Claim of Race Discrimination One of the main purposes of the requirement that an aggrieved party must file a charge with the EEOC is to “put the charged party on notice of the claims raised against it.” Sloop v. Mem’l Mission Hosp., Inc., 198 F.3d 147, 149 (4th Cir.1999); see also Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 811 , 117 S.Ct. 57 , 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Conkle
v.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Jeong, dba Laird's Food Market, Real Parties in Interest)
v.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Jeong, dba Laird's Food Market, Real Parties in Interest)
No. 95-1810.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1996.
Cited by 29 opinions | Published
Citer courts: District of Columbia (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.