530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,187 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"
548 U.S. 53 (2006) Cited 11,312 times 104 Legal Analyses
Holding that a jury could find a reassignment from a position with "an indication of prestige" to one involving less desirable responsibilities "would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee"
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,406 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
507 U.S. 604 (1993) Cited 1,911 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other
Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease
Holding that the plaintiff's diabetes and related medical conditions, which affected “many of the organ systems in his body,” were physical impairments under the ADA
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"
Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))
In 5 U.S.C. § 6101(c), Congress granted OPM the authority to "prescribe regulations, subject to the approval of the President, necessary for the administration of this section insofar as this section affects employees in or under an Executive agency."