477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 240,955 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,394 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"
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,495 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"
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,145 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 20,180 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"
507 U.S. 604 (1993) Cited 1,938 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,177 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
487 U.S. 977 (1988) Cited 1,401 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"
544 U.S. 228 (2005) Cited 667 times 57 Legal Analyses
Holding that "when Congress uses the same language in two statutes having similar purposes, particularly when one is enacted shortly after the other, it is appropriate to presume that Congress intended that text to have the same meaning in both statutes."