Milton E. Hill, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior Agency.

16 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 243,094 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 222,209 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,660 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan
536 U.S. 101 (2002) Cited 10,700 times 31 Legal Analyses
Holding limitations period for hostile-work-environment claim runs from the last act composing the claim
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,572 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,445 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 20,301 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"
O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
517 U.S. 308 (1996) Cited 2,099 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that inference of age discrimination cannot be drawn from “replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger”
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,188 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
Loeb v. Textron, Inc.
600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979) Cited 721 times
Denying any such requirement
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 338,855 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,057 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"

Milton E. Hill, Complainant, v. Gale A. Norton, Secretary, Department of the Interior Agency.

16 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

Holding limitations period for hostile-work-environment claim runs from the last act composing the claim

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 inference of age discrimination cannot be drawn from “replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger”

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

Denying any such requirement

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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