Case Citator › Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority

Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Ninth Circuit
Citation
271 F.3d 812
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
42 of 42
Citing cases (total)
42
Treatment dates
2002
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan displaced part of Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority's continuing violations analysis. Under Morgan, a discrete refusal to hire cannot be made timely merely because related discrimination continued into the filing period.
More on how this was screened

The Ninth Circuit later described Douglas as abrogated on other grounds in Janetra Johnson v. Departments of the Army and Air Force. Courts have continued to apply Douglas's separate holding that accepting federal Rehabilitation Act funds waives state immunity under Section 504. All 42 flagged citations have been read, and the confirmed treatment is listed below.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

42 later cases cite Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority; 42 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • The Supreme Court rejected the continuing violations approach Douglas used to treat an earlier discrete refusal to hire as timely under the ADA.

    National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We derive several principles from these cases. First, discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges. Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dossey Douglas v. California Department of Youth Authority and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace