Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)

Citation: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Parent Document: Eagen v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunities, 42 A.3d 478 (2012)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2012-05-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2297138/eagen-v-commission-on-human-rig... ↗

Full Text

654 chars

609 F.2d 702, [705-706] (4th Cir. 1979). Instead of determining whether a ‘personnel action’ has taken place, our federal employee discrimination cases have instead adopted the private employment standard of whether a plaintiff has suffered an ‘adverse employment action.’ We have noted that ‘[although phrased differently, [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 (a)] have generally been treated as comparable, with the standards governing private-sector illegal claims applied to such claims brought by federal employees.’ Baqir v. Principi, 434 F.3d 733, 742 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Page v. Bolger, 645 F.2d 227, 233 [4th Cir. 1981] [en banc]).”

Other Sections in This Document (112)

Full Text