27 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 239,217 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 218,869 times 40 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"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,803 times 96 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
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
490 U.S. 228 (1989) Cited 4,633 times 162 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co.
206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,811 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the timing of appellant's termination was suggestive of causation for both the retaliation and the quid pro quo claims
Simpson v. Kay Jewelers
142 F.3d 639 (3d Cir. 1998) Cited 1,215 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a petitioner may raise an inference of discrimination by demonstrating that "similarly situated persons were treated differently."
Williams v. Philadelphia Housing Authority
380 F.3d 751 (3d Cir. 2004) Cited 954 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that on its own, an intervening temporal period of two months cannot raise an inference of causation
Lichtenstein v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr.
691 F.3d 294 (3d Cir. 2012) Cited 726 times
Holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixed-motive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under "the more taxing McDonnell Douglas standard"
Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co.
681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) Cited 726 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer need not demonstrate that its investigation was “optimal or that it left no stone unturned”
McGreevy v. Stroup
413 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 2005) Cited 777 times
Holding that retaliatory unsatisfactory employment rating infringed on employee's First Amendment rights
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 333,232 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,441 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 12112 - Discrimination
42 U.S.C. § 12112 Cited 13,765 times 159 Legal Analyses
Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination
Section 12111 - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 12111 Cited 8,143 times 61 Legal Analyses
Adopting the definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for purposes of Title I of the ADA
Section 2601 - Findings and purposes
29 U.S.C. § 2601 Cited 7,725 times 39 Legal Analyses
Finding that there is inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from working for temporary periods
Section 2611 - Definitions
29 U.S.C. § 2611 Cited 2,929 times 48 Legal Analyses
Defining a "serious health condition"-a prerequisite for FMLA eligibility, see 29 U.S.C. § 2612(D)-as one requiring either inpatient hospital care or "continuing treatment by a health care provider"

Colonna v. Upmc Hamot et al

27 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

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 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 an employer discriminated on the basis of sex when he "act[ed] on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be"

Holding that the timing of appellant's termination was suggestive of causation for both the retaliation and the quid pro quo claims

Holding that a petitioner may raise an inference of discrimination by demonstrating that "similarly situated persons were treated differently."

Holding that on its own, an intervening temporal period of two months cannot raise an inference of causation

Holding that whether the case could proceed under a mixed-motive instruction was not relevant because the case could proceed under "the more taxing McDonnell Douglas standard"

Holding that an employer need not demonstrate that its investigation was “optimal or that it left no stone unturned”

Holding that retaliatory unsatisfactory employment rating infringed on employee's First Amendment rights

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

Recognizing failure to accommodate as form of discrimination

Adopting the definition of "person" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e for purposes of Title I of the ADA

Finding that there is inadequate job security for employees who have serious health conditions that prevent them from working for temporary periods

Defining a "serious health condition"-a prerequisite for FMLA eligibility, see 29 U.S.C. § 2612(D)-as one requiring either inpatient hospital care or "continuing treatment by a health care provider"