Terry D. Kinslow, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

8 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,294 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
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,266 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 19,969 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"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,161 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
E.E.O.C. v. Ohio Edison Co.
7 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 1993) Cited 134 times
Holding that Title VII's protections against retaliation extended to situations where an employee was discriminated against because his representative opposed an unlawful employment practice
Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber Plastics
946 F. Supp. 1108 (W.D.N.Y. 1996) Cited 64 times
Holding that plaintiff’s affidavits and resignation letter, and attorney’s affirmation were "not ‘written instruments’ within the meaning of Rule 10(c)"
De Medina v. Reinhardt
444 F. Supp. 573 (D.D.C. 1978) Cited 68 times
Holding that Title VII prohibited retaliation against the plaintiff employee in reprisal for the protected activities of her spouse
Thurman v. Robertshaw Control Co.
869 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Ga. 1994) Cited 15 times
Recognizing that "[i]n a case of an alleged retaliation for participation in a protected activity by a close relative who is a co-employee, the first element of the prima facie case is modified to require the plaintiff to show that the relative was engaged in statutorily protected expression."

Terry D. Kinslow, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

8 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 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 Title VII's protections against retaliation extended to situations where an employee was discriminated against because his representative opposed an unlawful employment practice

Holding that plaintiff’s affidavits and resignation letter, and attorney’s affirmation were "not ‘written instruments’ within the meaning of Rule 10(c)"

Holding that Title VII prohibited retaliation against the plaintiff employee in reprisal for the protected activities of her spouse

Recognizing that "[i]n a case of an alleged retaliation for participation in a protected activity by a close relative who is a co-employee, the first element of the prima facie case is modified to require the plaintiff to show that the relative was engaged in statutorily protected expression."