Michael E. Littles, Complainant, v. Eric K. Shinseki, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

13 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,600 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
  2. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.

    510 U.S. 17 (1993)   Cited 12,763 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
  3. 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"
  4. Henson v. City of Dundee

    682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 984 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
  5. 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
  6. 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"
  7. Walker v. Ford Motor Co.

    684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that plaintiff established hostile environment where racial harassment made plaintiff “feel unwanted and uncomfortable in his surroundings,” even though it was not directed at him
  8. McKinney v. Dole

    765 F.2d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 1985)   Cited 144 times
    Holding that sexual harassment, to be illegal, "need not take the form of sexual advances or of other incidents with clearly sexual overtones"
  9. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 52,867 times   132 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  10. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,775 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
  11. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,317 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 . . ."
  12. 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
  13. Section 1630.9 - Not making reasonable accommodation

    29 C.F.R. § 1630.9   Cited 473 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”