Legal Opinion
Murphy v. West
District Court, D. Maryland
Decided November 13, 1996No. Civil Action AMD 95-3777PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
DAVIS, District Judge.
©
The plaintiffs are 24 current and former civilian employees of the United States Army Research Laboratory (“ARL”). Alleging the existence of a. longstanding and pervasive regime of officially-sanctioned race and sex, discrimination at ARL, plaintiffs purport to seek monetary, equitable and declaratory relief against the Secretary of the Army, defendant West (“the Secretary”), under Title VII, 42 U.S.CA. § 2000e-16, on behalf of a class of current and former employees of ARL who have been victims of unlawful discrimination and retaliation. These claims are…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Honig v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Brown v. General Services AdministrationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- McCarthy v. MadiganSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Gutierrez De Martinez v. LamagnoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Kathleen A. Shanaghan v. John D. Cahill Cahill & Associates, IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1995
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- You v. Longs Drugs Stores California, LLCDistrict Court, D. Hawaii · 2013
- Talbot v. U.S. Foodservice, Inc.District Court, D. Maryland · 2002
- Scannell v. Bel Air Police DepartmentDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1997
- Sengupta v. University of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 2006
- Persons v. RunyonDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1998