Citation network
Shaw Vs. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1983
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
-
Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Air Lines, Inc. - 463 U.S. 85 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) Shaw v. DeltaSearch
-
disabilities engages in sex discrimination within the meaning of the Human Rights Law. Brooklyn Union Gas Co. v. NewSearch
-
et seq. General Electric Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
Dry Dock Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans. See Nachman Corp. v. PensionSearch
-
Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
state disability insurance laws. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed as to the Human Rights Law. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
Metropolitan Life Page 463 U. S. 94 Insurance Co. v. KramarskySearch
-
Burroughs Corp. v. KramarskySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Relying on this Court's decision in Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
Inc., 451 U. S. 504 (1981), and on its own ruling in Pervel Industries, Inc. v. ConnecticutSearch
-
is maintained solely to comply with a disability law. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
command is explicitly stated in the statute's language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.' Jones v. RathSearch
-
la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141 , 458 U. S. 152 -153 (1982). See Exxon Corp. v. EagertonSearch
-
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. StateSearch
-
reason to believe Congress intended the language to have some more restrictive meaning. Consumer Product Safety Comm'n v. GTESearch
-
North Dakota v. UnitedSearch
-
Dickerson v. NewSearch
-
it is enforced. State laws obviously play a significant role in the enforcement of Title VII. See, e.g., Kremer v. ChemicalSearch
-
Love v. PullmanSearch
-
Together with Shaw, Acting Commissioner, New York State Division of Human Rights v. BurroughsSearch
-
and Shaw, Acting Commissioner, New York State Division of Human Rights, et al. v. MetropolitanSearch
-
at 86, n. 1, 359 N.E.2d at 395, n. 1. Most state courts have done the same. See Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. StateSearch
-
and Title VII. These claims were resolved against the Airlines, see Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
The opinion in the Airlines' case is reported as Delta Air Lines Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
of Appeals had reversed the District Courts' holdings that ERISA preempted the Human Rights Law. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. KramarskySearch
-
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. KramarskySearch
-
Court's dismissals, for want of a substantial federal question, of the appeals in Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. StateSearch
-
N.W.2d 396 (Minn.1979), appeal dism'd, 444 U.S. 1041 (1980), and Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. CommissionerSearch
-
F.2d at 1296, the court noted that dismissals of appeals are binding precedents for the lower courts, see Hicks v. MirandaSearch
-
and n. 14 (1975), while denials of certiorari have no precedential force. After this Court's decision in Alessi v. Raybestos-ManhattanSearch
-
Hicks v. MirandaSearch
-
See Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. StateSearch
-
Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. CommissionerSearch
-
Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. DepartmentSearch
-
The Court's decision today in Franchise Tax Board v. ConstructionSearch
-
to resolve. See Smith v. KansasSearch
-
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. MottleySearch
-
This Court, of course, frequently has resolved preemption disputes in a similar jurisdictional posture. See, e.g., Ray v. AtlanticSearch
-
Jones v. RathSearch
-
Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. PaulSearch
-
federal role in regulating benefit plans, therefore, is instructive, but not dispositive. See also Franchise Tax Board v. ConstructionSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Shaw v. DeltaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial