Jacqueline R. Thomas, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,534 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"
  2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,213 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
  3. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,643 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
  4. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,391 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
  5. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 20,204 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"
  6. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.

    523 U.S. 75 (1998)   Cited 5,291 times   50 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
  7. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens

    460 U.S. 711 (1983)   Cited 2,419 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
  8. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,675 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 "
  9. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,180 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
  10. 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"
  11. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 52,487 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  12. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,646 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
  13. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,303 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
  14. Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.405   Cited 83 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"