Matilde M.,1 Complainant, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

15 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,187 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 52,406 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
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,387 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,997 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"
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
Henson v. City of Dundee
682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 977 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment
Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland
518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975) Cited 46 times
In Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975), a case involving a claim of racially discriminatory dismissal and conditions of employment, this Court reiterated the McDonnell Douglas prima facie standard.
Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose
29 U.S.C. § 621 Cited 17,503 times 21 Legal Analyses
Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities
29 U.S.C. § 791 Cited 2,276 times 6 Legal Analyses
Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
Section 1630.9 - Not making reasonable accommodation
29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 Cited 464 times 6 Legal Analyses
Providing that if an “individual rejects a reasonable accommodation . . . and cannot, as a result of that rejection, perform the essential functions of the position, the individual will not be considered qualified”
Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110 Cited 226 times 1 Legal Analyses
Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”
Section 1614.108 - Investigation of complaints
29 C.F.R. § 1614.108 Cited 179 times 2 Legal Analyses
Describing inquisitorial nature of investigation process
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 137 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 81 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1614.403 - How to appeal
29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 Cited 34 times
Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC

Matilde M.,1 Complainant, v. Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Agency.

15 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 "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

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

In Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975), a case involving a claim of racially discriminatory dismissal and conditions of employment, this Court reiterated the McDonnell Douglas prima facie standard.

Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"

Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."

Providing that if an “individual rejects a reasonable accommodation . . . and cannot, as a result of that rejection, perform the essential functions of the position, the individual will not be considered qualified”

Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”

Describing inquisitorial nature of investigation process

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC