Michael A. Rainbolt, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

15 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,613 times 98 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
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,306 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"
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc.
523 U.S. 75 (1998) Cited 5,342 times 50 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"
U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,426 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
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,707 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 "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,630 times 5 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"
Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician Serv
247 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2001) Cited 395 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is evidence of disability-based harassment when a supervisor hovers around an employee's work area, eavesdrops on her conversations, and intercepts her phone calls
Fox v. General Motors Corp.
247 F.3d 169 (4th Cir. 2001) Cited 370 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff presented evidence of "objectively severe and pervasive workplace harassment" under the ADA where the plaintiff had offered "a good deal of evidence that [his] supervisors ... in vulgar and profane language, constantly berated and harassed him and the other" workers with disabilities and that this harassment "occurred at least weekly"
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
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) Cited 249 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"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 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"
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 877 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

Michael A. Rainbolt, Complainant, v. Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary, Department of Transportation, Agency.

15 Cited authorities

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 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 "[w]hatever evidentiary route the plaintiff chooses to follow, he or she must always prove that the conduct at issue was not merely tinged with offensive . . . connotations"

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

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 "

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"

Holding that there is evidence of disability-based harassment when a supervisor hovers around an employee's work area, eavesdrops on her conversations, and intercepts her phone calls

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

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"

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

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