§

Maria Fuentes, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), Agency.

0120091994 (E.E.O.C. Jun. 30, 2010)
Maria Fuentes, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Southwest Area), 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. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,283 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

  3. Hashimoto v. Dalton

    118 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1997)   Cited 303 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, although “the timing of the events suffice[d] to establish a minimal prima facie case of retaliation, it d[id] nothing to refute” the employer's stated legitimate reasons for disciplining the plaintiff

  4. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology

    545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976)   Cited 248 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"

  5. Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation, Etc.

    425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976)   Cited 87 times
    Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement

  6. Smith v. Secretary of Navy

    659 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1981)   Cited 42 times
    Upholding injunctive relief requiring purging of discriminatory records from personnel file

  7. Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16   Cited 4,954 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"