§

Sylvia Alcala, Complainant, v. Robert E. Rubin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

01975949 (E.E.O.C. Mar. 7, 2000)
Sylvia Alcala, Complainant, v. Robert E. Rubin, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 52,401 times   95 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

  2. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,282 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

  3. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 19,994 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"

  4. O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.

    517 U.S. 308 (1996)   Cited 2,069 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inference of age discrimination cannot be drawn from “replacement of one worker with another worker insignificantly younger”

  5. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,164 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

  6. Loeb v. Textron, Inc.

    600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir. 1979)   Cited 721 times
    Denying any such requirement

  7. Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland

    518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975)   Cited 46 times
    In Potter v. Goodwill Industries of Cleveland, 518 F.2d 864 (6th Cir. 1975), a case involving a claim of racially discriminatory dismissal and conditions of employment, this Court reiterated the McDonnell Douglas prima facie standard.