29 Cited authorities

Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar
570 U.S. 338 (2013) Cited 5,210 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that application of the " ‘because’ of" requirement of Title VII's antiretaliation provision requires proof of "but-for" causation
Morse v. Lower Merion School District
132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 6,180 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that because "the notion of deliberate indifference contemplates a danger that must at least be foreseeable," defendant cannot be said to have ignored a foreseeable risk or danger if plaintiff has not shown the existence of such a risk
Fuentes v. Perskie
32 F.3d 759 (3d Cir. 1994) Cited 3,765 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff can challenge a legitimate reason for an employment action by showing, inter alia, that the employer treated other, similarly situated persons not of her protected class more favorably
Farrell v. Planters Lifesavers Co.
206 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 2000) Cited 1,766 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 1,211 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 946 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that on its own, an intervening temporal period of two months cannot raise an inference of causation
Woodson v. Scott Paper Co.
109 F.3d 913 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 1,088 times
Holding that the Civil Rights Act of 1991's addition of § 2000e–2(m)'s "motivating-factor" standard of causation does not apply to Title VII retaliation claims
Marra v. Phila. Hous.
497 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2007) Cited 691 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff's testimony that his employer did not retaliate against him was irrelevant in light of evidence that the employer's stated reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext
Brewer v. Quaker State Oil Ref. Corp.
72 F.3d 326 (3d Cir. 1995) Cited 954 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that McDonnell Douglas framework applies to ADEA claims
Keller v. Orix Credit Alliance, Inc.
130 F.3d 1101 (3d Cir. 1997) Cited 802 times
Holding that a statement made by a decisionmaker four to five months prior to termination was an insufficient basis from which to infer discrimination, because it was not directly related to termination
Section 1630.2 - Definitions
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 Cited 8,334 times 141 Legal Analyses
Holding that major life activity is substantially limited if plaintiff is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities"

Conway v. Celtic Healthcare of Carlisle, Inc. et al

29 Cited authorities

Holding that application of the " ‘because’ of" requirement of Title VII's antiretaliation provision requires proof of "but-for" causation

Holding that because "the notion of deliberate indifference contemplates a danger that must at least be foreseeable," defendant cannot be said to have ignored a foreseeable risk or danger if plaintiff has not shown the existence of such a risk

Holding that a plaintiff can challenge a legitimate reason for an employment action by showing, inter alia, that the employer treated other, similarly situated persons not of her protected class more favorably

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 the Civil Rights Act of 1991's addition of § 2000e–2(m)'s "motivating-factor" standard of causation does not apply to Title VII retaliation claims

Holding that the plaintiff's testimony that his employer did not retaliate against him was irrelevant in light of evidence that the employer's stated reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext

Holding that McDonnell Douglas framework applies to ADEA claims

Holding that a statement made by a decisionmaker four to five months prior to termination was an insufficient basis from which to infer discrimination, because it was not directly related to termination

Holding that major life activity is substantially limited if plaintiff is "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities"