Graciano Velez, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.

18 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,385 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,282 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 19,991 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"
Teamsters v. United States
431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,608 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,164 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
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank Tr.
487 U.S. 977 (1988) Cited 1,379 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
401 U.S. 424 (1971) Cited 2,764 times 34 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
490 U.S. 642 (1989) Cited 980 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union
Castaneda v. Partida
430 U.S. 482 (1977) Cited 1,228 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the respondent's showing "that the population of the county was 79.1% Mexican-American, but that, over an 11-year period, only 39% of the persons summoned for grand jury service were Mexican-American" established a prima facie case of discrimination against Mexican-Americans in the county's grand jury selection process
Hazelwood School District v. United States
433 U.S. 299 (1977) Cited 870 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that to “constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination,” a plaintiff must show “gross statistical disparities”

Graciano Velez, Complainant, v. William S. Cohen, Secretary, Department of Defense, Agency.

18 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 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 a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile

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 plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"

Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance

Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union

Holding that to “constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination,” a plaintiff must show “gross statistical disparities”