Clarence Wilson, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

11 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,600 times 98 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
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,306 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"
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.
511 U.S. 244 (1994) Cited 3,895 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"
Delaware State College v. Ricks
449 U.S. 250 (1980) Cited 2,387 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding a claim began to accrue when a board made the final decision to deny tenure, not after the subsequent grievance procedure to the same board
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,707 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 "
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman
455 U.S. 363 (1982) Cited 2,099 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that an organization suffers injury in fact when its key activities are "perceptibly impaired" and its resources "consequent[ly] drain[ed]"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,188 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
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,630 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"
Morgan v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
232 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 106 times
Holding that district court erred in granting partial summary judgment as to conduct occurring during an eight year period prior to the limitations period
Milton v. Weinberger
645 F.2d 1070 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 74 times
Holding that to be continuing, the discrimination may not be limited to isolated incidents, but must pervade a series or pattern of events which continue into the filing period
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Clarence Wilson, Complainant, v. Anthony J. Principi, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

11 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 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 statute may apply retroactively when "clear congressional intent favor such a result"

Holding a claim began to accrue when a board made the final decision to deny tenure, not after the subsequent grievance procedure to the same board

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 an organization suffers injury in fact when its key activities are "perceptibly impaired" and its resources "consequent[ly] drain[ed]"

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 "[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 district court erred in granting partial summary judgment as to conduct occurring during an eight year period prior to the limitations period

Holding that to be continuing, the discrimination may not be limited to isolated incidents, but must pervade a series or pattern of events which continue into the filing period

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"