Ardell B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

21 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,186 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,401 times 95 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
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,384 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,282 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,994 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"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,164 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
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan
417 U.S. 188 (1974) Cited 1,404 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption
Henson v. City of Dundee
682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 977 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
567 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1976) Cited 353 times
Holding that under Title VII class action, single-filing cannot revive claims that are no longer viable at the time of filing
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 51,678 times 129 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 216 - Penalties
29 U.S.C. § 216 Cited 16,472 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”
Section 206 - Minimum wage
29 U.S.C. § 206 Cited 8,872 times 100 Legal Analyses
Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”
Section 1604.11 - Sexual harassment
29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 Cited 951 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for co-worker harassment if "the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action"
Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110 Cited 226 times 1 Legal Analyses
Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 137 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1620.14 - Testing equality of jobs
29 C.F.R. § 1620.14 Cited 93 times
Explaining that the requirements of substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility are separate tests, each of which must be met
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 81 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1620.15 - Jobs requiring equal skill in performance
29 C.F.R. § 1620.15 Cited 78 times
Discussing ability as a subfactor of skill
Section 1620.17 - Jobs requiring equal responsibility in performance
29 C.F.R. § 1620.17 Cited 58 times
Stating that "payment of a higher rate" to an employee who has "additional degree of responsibility which may materially affect the business operations of the employer" is permissible
Section 1620.16 - Jobs requiring equal effort in performance
29 C.F.R. § 1620.16 Cited 38 times
Stating that "[w]here substantial differences exist in the amount or degree of effort required to be expended in the performance of jobs, the equal pay standard cannot apply even though the jobs may be equal in all other respects"
Section 1614.403 - How to appeal
29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 Cited 34 times
Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC

Ardell B.,1 Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Headquarters), Agency.

21 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

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

Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

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"

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

Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption

Holding that under Title VII class action, single-filing cannot revive claims that are no longer viable at the time of filing

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

Holding employers liable for “unpaid minimum wages, or their unpaid overtime compensation”

Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”

Holding employers liable for co-worker harassment if "the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action"

Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Explaining that the requirements of substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility are separate tests, each of which must be met

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Discussing ability as a subfactor of skill

Stating that "payment of a higher rate" to an employee who has "additional degree of responsibility which may materially affect the business operations of the employer" is permissible

Stating that "[w]here substantial differences exist in the amount or degree of effort required to be expended in the performance of jobs, the equal pay standard cannot apply even though the jobs may be equal in all other respects"

Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC