CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Brigida v. FAA

United States discrimination case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionAug 14, 2026
Entity authorityQ132555074 ↗
Source-derived summary

Brigida v. United States Department of Transportation et al, No. 1:2016cv02227, is a class action, racial discrimination lawsuit that was filed in the United States in November 2016. The lead plaintiff is Andrew Brigida. The plaintiffs, in total about 1,000, accused the Federal Aviation Administration of racially discriminating against them when they applied to be air-traffic controllers.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “Brigida v. FAA” as united States discrimination case. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Brigida, United and States.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2016—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Brigida, United and States providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “Brigida v. FAA”, the useful work is to connect “united States discrimination case” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Aug 14, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q132555074. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2016.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Brigida v. FAA”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Brigida v. FAA primary sources, Brigida v. FAA archive and Brigida research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Brigida v. FAA”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Brigida v. FAA” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.