Arthuretta H. Martin, Complainant, v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,293 times 96 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 12,666 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,683 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 "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,626 times 4 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"
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison
432 U.S. 63 (1977) Cited 807 times 62 Legal Analyses
Holding that to leave the employershort-handed would involve costs to the employer “in the form of lost efficiency”
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) Cited 249 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation, Etc.
425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976) Cited 87 times
Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement
Section 1605.2 - Reasonable accommodation without undue hardship as required by section 701(j) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
29 C.F.R. § 1605.2 Cited 88 times 10 Legal Analyses
In 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(e), the EEOC states that it will determine "undue hardship" as "more than a de minimis cost" in accordance with Hardison.

Arthuretta H. Martin, Complainant, v. Lawrence H. Summers, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

8 Cited authorities

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 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 "

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"

Holding that to leave the employershort-handed would involve costs to the employer “in the form of lost efficiency”

Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"

Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement

In 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(e), the EEOC states that it will determine "undue hardship" as "more than a de minimis cost" in accordance with Hardison.