Ricky Thompson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

9 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,293 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,401 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 20,221 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"
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
527 U.S. 471 (1999) Cited 2,908 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."
U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,422 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
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,182 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
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
527 U.S. 555 (1999) Cited 687 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that although vision-impaired individuals may not have "an onerous burden" in demonstrating disability and "ordinarily will meet the [ADA]'s definition of disability," they must still offer evidence of "limitation in terms of their own experience"
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
527 U.S. 516 (1999) Cited 505 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."
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 875 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

Ricky Thompson, Complainant, v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

9 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 " person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently 'substantially limits' a major life activity."

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 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 although vision-impaired individuals may not have "an onerous burden" in demonstrating disability and "ordinarily will meet the [ADA]'s definition of disability," they must still offer evidence of "limitation in terms of their own experience"

Holding that the "determination of [a person's] disability is made with reference to the mitigating measures he employs."

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