§Why CasetextPricing

Montgomery v. Chao et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

34 Cited authorities

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

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,186 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, since the 58-year-old plaintiff was fired by his 60-year-old employer, there was an inference that "age discrimination was not the motive"

  2. Ash v. Tyson Foods

    546 U.S. 454 (2006)   Cited 700 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that decisionmaker’s alleged use of term "boy" to refer to African-American employees was evidence of discriminatory animus

  3. Holcomb v. Powell

    433 F.3d 889 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 1,290 times
    Holding that a "qualifications-based justification" satisfies the second prong of the McDonnell Douglas framework

  4. Combs v. Plantation Patterns

    106 F.3d 1519 (11th Cir. 1997)   Cited 1,727 times
    Holding that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the plaintiff "failed to produce evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to reject as spurious [the defendant's] explanation that it promoted [another employee] instead of [the plaintiff] to supervisor because [the other employee] had superior supervisory experience"

  5. Aka v. Washington Hospital Center

    156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998)   Cited 1,145 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a plaintiff's discrediting of an employer's stated reason for its employment decision is entitled to considerable weight"

  6. Brown v. Brody

    199 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1999)   Cited 659 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that lateral transfer or the denial thereof, without more, does not constitute an adverse employment action

  7. Russell v. Acme-Evans Co.

    51 F.3d 64 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 720 times
    Holding that the fact that one reason is successfully called into question by the plaintiff does not defeat summary judgment for the employer if at least one reason for the employer's actions stands unquestioned

  8. Waterhouse v. Dist. of Columbia

    298 F.3d 989 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 530 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a plaintiff's proposed comparisons "added nothing" to her claim of pretext given "the absence of evidence that the comparators were actually similarly situated to her"

  9. Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dept

    427 F.3d 1303 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 445 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that "each reason given by the employer is unworthy of credence"

  10. Fischbach v. D.C. Dep. of Corr

    86 F.3d 1180 (D.C. Cir. 1996)   Cited 535 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the employer's proffered nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual

  11. Section 2302 - Prohibited personnel practices

    5 U.S.C. § 2302   Cited 1,496 times   20 Legal Analyses
    Protecting the disclosure of "any violation of any law, rule, or regulation ... if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law"

  12. Section 5112 - General authority of the Office of Personnel Management

    5 U.S.C. § 5112   Cited 18 times

    (a) Notwithstanding section 5107 of this title, the Office of Personnel Management may- (1) ascertain currently the facts as to the duties, responsibilities, and qualification requirements of a position; (2) place in an appropriate class and grade a newly created position or a position coming initially under this chapter; (3) decide whether a position is in its appropriate class and grade; and (4) change a position from one class or grade to another class or grade when the facts warrant. The Office