Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Civil Rights : From 10/01/03 To 07/01/04
Number of summaries found: 5
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS |
| Date: | 06/14/04 |
| Case Number: | 03-95 |
| Summary: | To establish "constructive discharge," plaintiff must prove a work environment so hostile as to merit resignation as a fitting response. Defendants may assert affirmative defenses in a case alleging constructive discharge, unless plaintiff quit in response to an official change in her employment status. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Injury And Tort Law |
| Title: | TENNESSEE v. LANE |
| Date: | 05/17/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1667 |
| Summary: | As it applies to the class of cases implicating the fundamental right of access to the courts, Title II of the ADA constitutes a valid exercise of Congress' authority to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive guarantees. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Injury And Tort Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | JONES v. R.R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. |
| Date: | 05/03/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1205 |
| Summary: | A cause of action "arises under an Act of Congress enacted" after December 1, 1990 - and therefore is governed by 28 U.S.C. section 1658's four-year statute of limitations - if the claim was made possible by a post-1990 enactment. Because petitioners' causes of action arose under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, they are not time-barred. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam |
| Title: | MUHAMMAD v. CLOSE |
| Date: | 02/25/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-9065 |
| Summary: | Court of Appeal's dismissal of prisoner's section 1983 action is reversed where the rule in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U. S. 477 (1994), which requires prisoners to resort to state litigation and federal habeas before section 1983, does not apply here. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | GEN. DYNAMICS LAND SYS., INC. v. CLINE |
| Date: | 02/24/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-1080 |
| Summary: | The ADEA's text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one. Thus, it does not protect plaintiffs-employees, all between 40 and 50 years old, who were denied health benefits under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. |