[Redacted], Adalberto R., 1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives), Agency.
Appeal No. 2021002022 (E.E.O.C. Aug. 4, 2021)
[Redacted], Adalberto R., 1 Complainant, v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, Department of Justice (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives), Agency.
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,473 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"
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,159 times 96 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
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,184 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"
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,419 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
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,178 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
Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 83 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"