Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,772 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding "a weak issue of fact as to whether the employer's reason was untrue" is insufficient
  2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,808 times   100 Legal Analyses
    Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision
  3. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 20,358 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"
  4. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,729 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
  5. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,192 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context
  6. Pullman-Standard v. Swint

    456 U.S. 273 (1982)   Cited 1,634 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
  7. Arnett v. Kennedy

    416 U.S. 134 (1974)   Cited 1,600 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal statute authorizing discharge of federal employees for "such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service" was neither void for vagueness nor overbroad in light of "longstanding principles of employer-employee relationships" and "[the availability of legal counsel] to employees who [sought] advice on the interpretation of the Act and its regulations"