Legal Opinion
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ACKERMAN, HOOD & McQUEEN, INC., Defendant-Appellant
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided February 10, 1992No. 91-6116PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BARRETT, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Ackerman, Hood & McQueen (AHM) appeals from a judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on claims the EEOC brought on behalf of Phyllis Torbeck pursuant to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). Following a two-day bench trial, the district court determined AHM violated the PDA, and thus Title VII, when it fired Phyllis Torbeck due to her pregnancy. EEOC v. Ackerman, Hood & McQueen, Inc., 758 F.Supp. 1440, 1453 (W.D.Okla.1991). We affirm. 1
Facts
AHM is an advertising agency located in Oklahoma City,…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Price Waterhouse v. HopkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- General Electric Co. v. GilbertSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. GuerraSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Kimberly Hern Troupe v. The May Department Stores Company, Doing Business as Lord & TaylorCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
- Kelli Lyn Metz, and v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1994
- Andrea E. Boyd v. Harding Academy of Memphis, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- Atchley v. Nordam Group, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.