Hilario Nagales, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 52,419 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
  2. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,286 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 20,004 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. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,165 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
  5. Prewitt v. United States Postal Service

    662 F.2d 292 (5th Cir. 1981)   Cited 292 times
    Concluding in a Rehabilitation Act case involving employment discrimination that the employer has the burden of persuasion on the issue of reasonable accommodation
  6. Norcross v. Sneed

    755 F.2d 113 (8th Cir. 1985)   Cited 39 times
    Accepting Doe's description of handicap discrimination claims
  7. Sisson v. Helms

    751 F.2d 991 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 24 times
    Affirming dismissal of a handicap discrimination claim because "[t]he district court's finding that [the plaintiff] failed to prove that there were jobs available at the Airways Facilities Division is supported by the evidence and was not clearly erroneous"