Legal Opinion
Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 13, 1974No. 74-1037PublishedCited by 70 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
EUGENE A. WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:
Van Hoomissen sued Xerox, his former employer, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)], alleging that Xerox fired him and engaged in other acts of retaliation because of his efforts to recruit minorities. The Equal Opportunity Commission sought leave to intervene under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b). In its proposed complaint in intervention, EEOC alleged that Xerox both engaged in discriminatory hiring practices and had unlawfully retaliated against Van Hoomissen. The district court granted…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Greenwood v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. GoldwynCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Van Hoomissen v. Xerox Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by70 opinions
- Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Avera v. Secretary of Health and Human ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008
- Hanrahan v. HamptonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Manufacturers Association, IntervenorsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Smith v. University of North CarolinaCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1980
65 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.