Roxane C. v. Dep't of Def.

14 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 243,214 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 222,322 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"
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.
534 U.S. 506 (2002) Cited 17,486 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,600 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 12,448 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 20,306 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"
Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
574 U.S. 972 (2015) Cited 649 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that claims under the PDA follow the McDonnell Douglas framework
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
Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp.
846 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1988) Cited 413 times
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
Deneen v. Nw. Airlines, Inc.
132 F.3d 431 (8th Cir. 1998) Cited 107 times
Holding that proof of discrimination offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to support a punitive damages award in light of the employer's belief that its actions were required by a collective bargaining agreement
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 339,042 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 5,062 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"

Roxane C. v. Dep't of Def.

14 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 with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

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 claims under the PDA follow the McDonnell Douglas framework

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

Holding that proof of discrimination offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to support a punitive damages award in light of the employer's belief that its actions were required by a collective bargaining agreement

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"