16 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,328 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 52,204 times 95 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
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 19,950 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"
Devereaux v. Abbey
263 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 2,348 times
Holding that questionable investigative techniques did not cause due process violations and noting that “[f]ailing to follow guidelines or to carry out an investigation in a manner that will ensure an error-free result is one thing; intentionally fabricating false evidence is quite another”
Gomez-Perez v. Potter
553 U.S. 474 (2008) Cited 305 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the statutory phrase 'discrimination based on age' " in § 633a "includes retaliation based on the filing of an age discrimination complaint"
Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.
26 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1994) Cited 1,206 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding an employer is required to proffer only "a" legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment action
Fairbank v. Wunderman Cato Johnson
212 F.3d 528 (9th Cir. 2000) Cited 895 times
Holding in removed case that reconsideration of state court's denial of summary judgment was proper because "California and federal summary judgment standards are different"
Shelley v. Geren
666 F.3d 599 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 247 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that a federal-sector plaintiff “must prove at trial that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer's adverse action”
Muffoletto v. Christus St. Vincent Reg'l Med. Ctr.
157 F. Supp. 3d 1107 (D.N.M. 2015) Cited 15 times
Holding that circumstances addressed by New Mexico Supreme Court did not exist in that case because plaintiff consulted with attorney before signing and submitting Charge of Discrimination form so that plaintiff was not "unwary."
Rodríguez-Cruz v. Stewart Title P.R., Inc.
209 F. Supp. 3d 427 (D.P.R. 2016) Cited 7 times
Holding that Plaintiff's termination was not discriminatory since her position was eliminated and two older employees in similar roles to hers were retained but under new roles
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,775 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
28 U.S.C. § 1746 Cited 10,033 times 17 Legal Analyses
Permitting the use of declarations instead
Section 631 - Age limits
29 U.S.C. § 631 Cited 2,112 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that the ADEA protects individuals who are at least 40 years of age

Peterson v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

16 Cited authorities

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 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"

Holding that questionable investigative techniques did not cause due process violations and noting that “[f]ailing to follow guidelines or to carry out an investigation in a manner that will ensure an error-free result is one thing; intentionally fabricating false evidence is quite another”

Holding that "the statutory phrase 'discrimination based on age' " in § 633a "includes retaliation based on the filing of an age discrimination complaint"

Holding an employer is required to proffer only "a" legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its adverse employment action

Holding in removed case that reconsideration of state court's denial of summary judgment was proper because "California and federal summary judgment standards are different"

Holding that a federal-sector plaintiff “must prove at trial that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer's adverse action”

Holding that circumstances addressed by New Mexico Supreme Court did not exist in that case because plaintiff consulted with attorney before signing and submitting Charge of Discrimination form so that plaintiff was not "unwary."

Holding that Plaintiff's termination was not discriminatory since her position was eliminated and two older employees in similar roles to hers were retained but under new roles

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

Permitting the use of declarations instead

Providing that the ADEA protects individuals who are at least 40 years of age