§

James D. McSweeny, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

01A03721 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 28, 2002)
James D. McSweeny, Complainant, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

3 Cited authorities

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

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,532 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. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,674 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 "

  3. 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"