Legal Opinion
MOLYBDENUM CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided March 29, 1972No. 71-1207PublishedCited by 26 opinions
1Per curiam
In March, 1969, Fabian Cisneros’ application for employment with Molybdenum Corporation of America was rejected for the stated reason that his vision was defective — he is blind in one eye. No claim of employment discrimination was made within 90 days of this occurrence. About six months later Cis-neros again applied for employment with Molybdenum and was again rejected for the same reason. He thereupon filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), claiming that he was actually refused employment because of his nationality, not because of his defective vision.
Pursu…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Love v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Bartmess v. Drewrys U. S. A., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1971
- Tippett v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco CompanyDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 1970
- Earl A. Love v. The Pullman Company, an Illinois Corporation, and United States of America, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenors. The Pullman Company, an Illinois Corporation, Defendant-Cross v. Earl A. Love, Plaintiff-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1970
3Cited by26 opinions
- Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1975
- Furr v. AT & T Technologies, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1987
- De Medina v. ReinhardtDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1978
- Vivian L. ROBERTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTH AMERICAN ROCKWELL CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1981
- Jurinko v. Edwin L. Wiegand Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1973
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.