Notes of Decisions
Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 14× “" 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (b). Here, too, a relevant caveat appears, as the provision speaks only of similar treatment "for the same requirements" under the two statutes, a prerequisite that remains unfulfilled.”
Natofsky v. City Of New York, 921 F.3d 337 (2d Cir. 2019).
· cites it 5× “*349 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a). Notably absent from this provision, however, is § 2000e-2(m), which establishes Title VII's mixed-motive test.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002).
· cites it 6× “After an investigation and an unsuccessful attempt to conciliate, the EEOC filed an enforcement action against respondent in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina, [2] pursuant to § 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U. S. C. § 12117 (a) (1994 ed.), and § 102 of the…”
Nancy Walsh v. Nevada Dep't of Human Resources, 471 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 3× “NOONAN, Circuit Judge: Nancy Walsh appeals the dismissal of her suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a), against the State of Nevada, the State Department of Human Resources, and individual employees of the Department.”
Gentry v. East West Partners Club Mgmt. Co., 816 F.3d 228 (4th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “- 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a). However, while this language incorporates Title VH’s “Enforcement provisions” in § 2000e-5, it does not incorporate the “Unlawful employment practices” in § 2000e-2, including § 2000e-2(m), which establishes mixed motive employment practices as unlawful.”
Adem A. Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “The remedies for violation of the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision in the employment context are set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 12117 . 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (c).”
Shotz v. City of Plantation, FL, 344 F.3d 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “There, the aggrieved person is ultimately referred to the remedies provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see § 12203(c); 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a), which prohibits discrimination by the same entities as prohibited by Subchapter I of the ADA regulating employment,…”
Michael Simko v. United States Steel Corp, 992 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “1999) (noting that claims asserted under the ADA must be filed in adherence with the administrative procedures set forth in Title VII); 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117 (a), 2000e-5.5 In Pennsylvania, an aggrieved party must initiate this pre-suit procedure by filing a charge with the EEOC…”
In the Interest of Doe, 60 P.3d 285 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 4× “; 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a) ("The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in sections 2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9 of this title shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures [of the ADA.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Sundance Rehab. Corp., 466 F.3d 490 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 4× “The EEOC sued SunDance under the antiretaliation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117 (a) and 12203; Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.”
Lincoln v. BNSF Ry. Co., 900 F.3d 1166 (10th Cir. 2018).
“See 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (a) ("The powers, remedies and procedures set forth in section[ ] .”
42 U.S.C. § 12117(a): 6 cases
42 U.S.C. § 12117(b): 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.