Legal Opinion
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided September 3, 2002No. Nos. 00-57222, 01-55321PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
TROTT, Circuit Judge.
The law firm Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps LLP (“Luce Forward”) refused to hire Donald Scott Lagatree (“Laga-tree”) as a full-time legal secretary because he would not sign an agreement to *997arbitrate claims arising from his employment. On behalf of Lagatree, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued Luce Forward for retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12208(b), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Lopez v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2000
- First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. AdamsSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton & ScrippsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & Scripps, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Luce, Forward, Hamilton, & ScrippsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2002