Jose Esparza, Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, (Food Safety and Inspection Service), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 52,406 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. Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

    340 U.S. 474 (1951)   Cited 9,575 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 1,614 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"
  4. Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Hlth

    198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999)   Cited 277 times
    Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease
  5. Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

    245 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2001)   Cited 217 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's diabetes and related medical conditions, which affected “many of the organ systems in his body,” were physical impairments under the ADA
  6. Caban-Wheeler v. Elsea

    904 F.2d 1549 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 101 times
    Holding that defendant's statement that program needed a black director constitutes direct evidence
  7. Swanks v. Washington Met. Area Transit

    179 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 50 times
    Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))