Legal Opinion
Donnelly v. Glickman
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided October 22, 1998No. 97-16648PublishedCited by 168 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
GRABER, Circuit Judge:
Two female employees brought this individual and class action, claiming that their employer had subjected them and other female employees to gender-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended (Title VII), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Four male employees moved to intervene on behalf of themselves and all other employees not within the plaintiff class, either as of right (Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2)) or permissively (Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2)). The district court denied both motions. The proposed intervenors appeal. We affirm the former…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Venegas v. MitchellSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Nancy Anne Spangler, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Pasadena City Board of EducationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Sagebrush Rebellion, Inc. v. WattCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1983
- Deus v. Allstate InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- Greene v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by168 opinions
- United States v. Alisal Water Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
- Perry v. Proposition 8 Official ProponentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
- Arakaki v. CayetanoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- United States v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002
- Canatella v. CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
163 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.