Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query harassment returned 22 results.

	DAVIS V. MONROE COUNTY BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	FARAGHER V. CITY OF BOCA RATON, 524 U.S. 775 (1998) [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE V. SUDERS [Syllabus] When a hostile work environment created by a supervisor culminates in a constructive discharge, may the employer assert an affirmative defense?
	BURLINGTON INDUSTRIES, INC. V. ELLERTH, 524 U.S. 742 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GEBSER V. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) [Syllabus]
	ONCALE V. SUNDOWNER OFFSHORE SERVICES, INC., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	JACKSON V. BIRMINGHAM BD. OF ED. [Syllabus]
	HARRIS V. FORKLIFT SYS., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). [Syllabus]
	PORTER V. NUSSLE [Syllabus] The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995's exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement applies to all inmate suits about prison life, whether they involve general circumstances or particular episodes, and whether they allege corrections officers' use of excessive force or some other wrong.
	POLLARD V. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. [Syllabus] Front pay is not an element of compensatory damages under 42 U. S. C. §1981a and thus is not subject to the damages cap imposed by §1981a(b)(3).
	NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATIONV. MORGAN [Syllabus] A plaintiff raising claims of discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must file his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within the appropriate 180- or 300-day statutory filing period, but a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period; in neither instance is a court precluded from applying equitable doctrines that may toll or limit the time period.
	JONES V. R. R. DONNELLEY & SONS CO. [Syllabus] Does the four-year catch-all limitations period of 28 U.S.C. §1658 apply to new causes of action created by public law 102-166, 105 Stat. 1071, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which were codified at 42 U.S.C. §1981(a) and (b)?
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	BURNS V. REED, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LANDGRAF V. USI FILM PRODS., 511 U.S. 244 (1994). [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. NASCO, INC., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. LUCAS, 500 U.S. 145 (1991) [Syllabus]
	LAPIDES V. BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. SYSTEMOF GA. [Syllabus] A State waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court.
	BURLINGTON N. & S. F. R. CO. V. WHITE [Syllabus]