§

Cristino Arroyo, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

0120121771 (E.E.O.C. Jul. 11, 2012)
Cristino Arroyo, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,349 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

  2. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,408 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

  3. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 20,240 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"

  4. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens

    460 U.S. 711 (1983)   Cited 2,422 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony to the employer's mental process," evidence of the employer's discriminatory attitude in general is relevant and admissible to prove discrimination

  5. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,185 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

  6. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 5,035 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"