Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

11 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,554 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,283 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,401 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 20,217 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"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,681 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 "
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,634 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,182 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 1,626 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"
Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co.
424 U.S. 747 (1976) Cited 1,100 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement
Morgan v. Hilti, Inc.
108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,171 times
Holding that the plaintiff failed to create an inference of pretext when the disciplinary actions "simply completed the disciplinary process already set in motion" before the plaintiff had engaged in protected speech
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,032 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"

Complainant, v. Megan J. Brennan, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

11 Cited authorities

Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

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 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 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 employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"

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 the interests of "unnamed members of the class" who are entitled to relief may satisfy the case-or-controversy requirement

Holding that the plaintiff failed to create an inference of pretext when the disciplinary actions "simply completed the disciplinary process already set in motion" before the plaintiff had engaged in protected speech

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