HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE INC.

v.

SPERLING ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. 1990)
  …d under the Free Exercise Clause, and concluded that it was not. The court therefore reaffirmed its previous ruling that the State could not deny unemployment benefits to respondents for having engaged in that practice. We again granted certiorari. 489 U. S. 1077 (1989). II Respondents’ claim for relief rests on our decisions in Sherbert v. Verner, supra, Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, and Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Florida, 480 U. S. 136 (1987), in which we…
• Hallstrom et ux. v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20 (U.S. 1989)
  …at 601. Therefore, the Court of Appeals remanded the action to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeals regarding the correct interpretation of the notice provision.2 489 U. S. 1077 (1989). II As we have repeatedly noted, “the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself.” Consumer Product Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U. S. 102, 108 (1980). Section 6972(a)(1) permits any person t…
• Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1989)
  …lf and other employees similarly situated. To resolve disagreement among the Courts of Appeals,1 we granted certiorari on the question whether a district court conducting a suit of this type may authorize and facilitate notice of the pending action. 489 U. S. 1077 (1989). I Age discrimination in employment is forbidden by § 4 of the ADEA. 29 U. S. C. §628 (1982 ed. and Supp. V). Section •7(b) of the ADEA incorporates enforcement provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat. 1060, as am…