Citation network
Chandler Vs. Roudebush
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 01, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
U.S. 840 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Chandler v. RoudebushSearch
-
U.S. 840 (1976) Chandler v. RoudebushSearch
-
The District Court adopted the holding of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in Hackley v. JohnsonSearch
-
F.Supp. 1247, rev'd Page 425 U. S. 843 sub nom. Hackley v. RoudebushSearch
-
intermediate scope of inquiry expounded in Hackley v. JohnsonSearch
-
Chandler v. JohnsonSearch
-
of 1964 accords private sector employees the right to de novo consideration of their Title VII claims. Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
McDonnell Page 425 U. S. 845 Douglas Corp. v. GreenSearch
-
Norman v. MissouriSearch
-
Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
The opinion of the District Court for the District of Columbia in Hackley v. JohnsonSearch
-
We cannot, therefore, agree with the view Page 425 U. S. 848 expressed by the District Court in Hackley v. JohnsonSearch
-
prior administrative hearings. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in reversing Hackley v. JohnsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
f) through (k). Hackley v. RoudebushSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. at 389, 520 F.2d at 121. This Court pointed out in Lynch v. Alworth-StephensSearch
-
It was against this backdrop of focused debate on the issue of administrative agency v. whollySearch
-
United States v. CarloSearch
-
c) gives federal employees the right to a trial de novo in the district court. Abrams v. JohnsonSearch
-
Caro v. SchultzSearch
-
Hackley v. RoudebushSearch
-
Sperlin v. UnitedSearch
-
Three other Courts of Appeals have held that federal employees are not generally entitled to trials de novo. Haire v. CallowaySearch
-
Salone v. UnitedSearch
-
See Hackley v. RoudebushSearch
-
Sperling v. UnitedSearch
-
probative of congressional intent than the casual remark of a single Senator in the floor debate. Cf. United States v. AutomobileSearch
-
correction is not probative. But we cannot agree with their further argument and the view of the Eighth Circuit, Haire v. CallowaySearch
-
be admitted as evidence at a federal sector trial de novo. See Fed.Rule Evid. 803(8)(C). Cf. Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Chandler v. RoudebushSearch
-
Hackley v. JohnsonSearch
-
Douglas Corp. v. GreenSearch
-
Lynch v. Alworth-StephensSearch
-
Abrams v. JohnsonSearch
-
Haire v. CallowaySearch
-
Cf. United States v. AutomobileSearch
-
of the Eighth Circuit, Haire v. CallowaySearch
-
See Fed.Rule Evid. 803(8)(C). Cf. Alexander v. Gardner-DenverSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial