§

Kenneth C. Brown, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army (National Guard Bureau), Agency.

01970189 (E.E.O.C. Feb. 25, 2000)
Kenneth C. Brown, Complainant, v. Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army (National Guard Bureau), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. 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

  2. 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"

  3. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

    507 U.S. 604 (1993)   Cited 1,910 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other

  4. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens

    460 U.S. 711 (1983)   Cited 2,406 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

  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. Sutton v. Atl. Richfield Co.

    646 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1981)   Cited 36 times

    No. 79-3345. Argued and Submitted April 6, 1981. Decided May 26, 1981. Jeffrey S. Pop, Pop Hahn, Beverly Hills, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Paul Grossman, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky Walker, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before ELY and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. The Honorable Gus J. Solomon, United States District Judge, District of Oregon, sitting by designation. ELY, Circuit

  7. Appendix to Part 1630 - Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act

    29 C.F.R. § 1630 app to Part 1630   Cited 860 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity entails the nature and severity of the impairment; the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and the permanent or long term impact