Milbert B. Hill, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

11 Cited authorities

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"
U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,406 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
Medina-Munoz v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
896 F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1990) Cited 1,974 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that one opposing summary judgment cannot rely simply on "conclusory allegations" or "unsupported speculation"
Loeb v. Textron, Inc.
600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979) Cited 721 times
Denying any such requirement
Burrus v. United Telephone Co. of Kan., Inc.
683 F.2d 339 (10th Cir. 1982) Cited 401 times
Holding that three years between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was too long to establish the third element
Mitchell v. Baldrige
759 F.2d 80 (D.C. Cir. 1985) Cited 355 times
Holding that it is defendant's burden to produce "evidence of selectees' superior qualifications," which plaintiff need not anticipate and rebut in establishing his prima facie case
La Montagne v. American Convenience Products, Inc.
750 F.2d 1405 (7th Cir. 1984) Cited 294 times
Holding that reasonable jury could not have found that employer's proffered justification regarding interpersonal skills was pretextual when president testified without rebuttal that he was annoyed with plaintiff
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"

Milbert B. Hill, Complainant, v. Daniel R. Glickman, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

11 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 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 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 one opposing summary judgment cannot rely simply on "conclusory allegations" or "unsupported speculation"

Denying any such requirement

Holding that three years between the protected activity and the adverse employment action was too long to establish the third element

Holding that it is defendant's burden to produce "evidence of selectees' superior qualifications," which plaintiff need not anticipate and rebut in establishing his prima facie case

Holding that reasonable jury could not have found that employer's proffered justification regarding interpersonal skills was pretextual when president testified without rebuttal that he was annoyed with plaintiff

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"