Tracy L. Steedley, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Southeast Area), Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,675 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"
  2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,613 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
  3. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,449 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
  4. 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"
  5. 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
  6. Fischbach v. D.C. Dep. of Corr

    86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 542 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual
  7. Carson v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation

    82 F.3d 157 (7th Cir. 1996)   Cited 298 times
    Holding that a race discrimination plaintiff need not establish he was replaced by a member of a different race but the "question instead is whether the plaintiff has established a logical reason to believe that the decision rests on a legally forbidden ground"