Evelyn L. Orosz, Complainant, v. William M. Daley, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,401 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
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,994 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"
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
527 U.S. 471 (1999) Cited 2,897 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,615 times 5 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"
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
527 U.S. 516 (1999) Cited 502 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."
Appendix to Part 1630 - Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act
29 C.F.R. § 1630 app to Part 1630 Cited 860 times 8 Legal Analyses
Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact

Evelyn L. Orosz, Complainant, v. William M. Daley, Secretary, Department of Commerce, Agency.

6 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

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

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"

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Holding that " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody

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

Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."

Appendix to Part 1630 - Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act

Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact