Circuit split · employment law
Whether a filing satisfies the minimum requirements to constitute a 'charge' of discrimination under federal employment-discrimination statutes
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc.497 F3D 1160
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals · August 14, 2007
“But without the plaintiffs’ actual CCRD filings, or even some meaningful record evidence about their contents, we would be marching into an intercircuit split unable to contribute thoughtfully to the discussion or even fairly resolve this appeal, for we could not begin to say whether plaintiffs’ filings meet even the minimum required to be considered a “charge” under any of the *1166 tests advanced by the circuit courts.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- DiscussedCasavantes732 F.2d 1443
What the split turns on
- Doctrines & tests:
- 'manifestation of intent' test
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.