487 U.S. 977 (1988) Cited 1,375 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"
490 U.S. 642 (1989) Cited 979 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union
Holding that the report and affidavits submitted by plaintiffs' expert were wholly insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact where the expert's opinions were entirely conclusory, were not supported by any specific data, and were premised on an unsupported factual assertion
Holding that equitable tolling was not warranted where the plaintiff merely requested withdrawal of her EEOC charges but did not request a right-to-sue letter; stating that "[s]uch a decision flouts the statutory requirement of a receipt of a right-to-sue letter, and amounts to a position of arrogance regarding the statutory requirement as mere surplusage"
Filing a complaint with the EEOC is a necessary, jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court; only the timeliness of the filing may be waived or tolled