King W., et.al., 1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,186 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,401 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,282 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,994 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"
Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon
457 U.S. 147 (1982) Cited 5,700 times 33 Legal Analyses
Holding that named plaintiff must prove “much more than the validity of his own claim”; the individual plaintiff must show that “the individual's claim and the class claims will share common questions of law or fact and that the individual's claim will be typical of the class claims,” explicitly referencing the “commonality” and “typicality” requirements of Rule 23
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,164 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
Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC
446 U.S. 318 (1980) Cited 1,388 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"
Martin v. Middendorf
420 F. Supp. 779 (D.D.C. 1976) Cited 134 times
Denying pro se plaintiff's motion for class certification due to, inter alia, a "built-in disadvantage" of a layman against experienced government counsel
Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.
74 F.R.D. 24 (N.D. Cal. 1977) Cited 79 times
Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices
Rule 23 - Class Actions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 Cited 35,153 times 1237 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"

King W., et.al., 1 Complainant, v. Dr. Mark T. Esper, Secretary, Department of the Army, Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

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

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

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"

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

Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"

Denying pro se plaintiff's motion for class certification due to, inter alia, a "built-in disadvantage" of a layman against experienced government counsel

Setting forth the requirements of commonality and typicality to maintain a class action claim involving unlawful employment practices

Holding that, to certify a class, the court must find that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members"