Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Zipes Vs. Trans World Airlines, Inc.

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 24, 1982

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

65 entries 4 linked 61 unlinked
Show
  1. United Air Lines, Inc. Vs. Evans US Supreme Court · May 31, 1977
  2. Mcdonnell Douglas Corp. Vs. Green US Supreme Court · May 14, 1973
  3. Mohasco Corp. Vs. Silver US Supreme Court · Jun 23, 1980
  4. Chase Securities Corp. Vs. Donaldson US Supreme Court · May 21, 1945
  5. Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  6. World Airlines, Inc. - 455 U.S. 385 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  7. World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  8. g). And, as made clear in Teamsters v. United
    Search
  9. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. American
    Search
  10. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. Trans
    Search
  11. of limitations. Although subsequent legislative history is not dispositive, see Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. Shell
    Search
  12. Cannon v. University
    Search
  13. Page 455 U. S. 396 More weighty inferences however, are to be drawn from other cases. Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  14. Co. v. Moody
    Search
  15. claimants who have filed timely charges with the EEOC, the District Courts in Franks and Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
    Search
  16. the EEOC should not be construed to erect a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in the district court. In Love v. Pullman
    Search
  17. The reasoning of other cases assumes that the filing requirement is not jurisdictional. In Electrical Workers v. Robbins
    Search
  18. Page 455 U. S. 398 Similarly, we did not sua sponte dismiss the action in Mohasco Corp. v. Silver
    Search
  19. should not be awarded over the objection of a union that has not itself been found guilty of discrimination. In Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  20. perpetuated in the collective bargaining agreements with the unions. 424 U.S. at 424 U. S. 751 . Teamsters v. United
    Search
  21. Together with No. 80-951, Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Trans
    Search
  22. The Court of Appeals relied on language in Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  23. See Electrical Workers v. Robbins
    Search
  24. Alexander v. Gardner-Denver
    Search
  25. See Carlile v. South
    Search
  26. Coke v. General
    Search
  27. Leake v. University
    Search
  28. Laffey v. Northwest
    Search
  29. claims. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit explicitly declined to follow McArthur v. Southern
    Search
  30. Airways, Inc., 569 F.2d 276 (CA5 1978) (en banc). Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. TWA
    Search
  31. Teamsters v. United
    Search
  32. equitable doctrines, and not as a restriction of the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, see NLRB v. Local
    Search
  33. Shumate v. NLRB
    Search
  34. NLRB v. Itasca
    Search
  35. et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V), which was modeled after Title VII, see Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans
    Search
  36. Court in dicta referred to such time provisions using the label 'jurisdictional prerequisite.' McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
    Search
  37. obviously referring to a statute of limitations, as opposed to subject matter jurisdiction. See also United Air Lines v. Evans
    Search
  38. dicta using the limitations label to the exclusion of the jurisdictional label. Occidental Life Insurance Company v. EEOC
    Search
  39. United Air Lines, Inc. v. McDonald
    Search
  40. U. S. 807 , 447 U. S. 818 -823 . . . (1980), Delaware State College v. Ricks
    Search
  41. the requirement is not jurisdictional. Moreover, in reaching this conclusion, we quoted from Chase Securities Corp. v. Donaldson
    Search
  42. Several Courts of Appeals have read Robbins & Myers as implicitly approving equitable tolling. Coke v. General
    Search
  43. Smith v. American
    Search
  44. not joined under Rule 19 when individuals replaced the union as class representatives, but intervened later. Cf. EEOC v. MacMillan
    Search
  45. This was made Page 455 U. S. 402 clear in United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans
    Search
  46. a settlement agreement was approved awarding retroactive competitive status seniority under the standard of Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  47. the judgment of the Court affirming the award of retroactive competitive status seniority under the standard of Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  48. In Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  49. The Court refers to United Air Lines v. Evans
    Search
  50. U.S. Supreme Court Zipes v. Trans
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial