16 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 216,278 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"
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,087 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"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 52,187 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 19,945 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"
Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp
964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) Cited 2,843 times
Holding that a plaintiff terminated for "misuse of [an employer’s] property" could not rely on comparators allegedly guilty of "absenteeism" and "insubordination"
Summers v. Leis
368 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,396 times
Holding that failure to correct the actions of subordinates was not enough to rise to the level of liability required under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.
533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) Cited 943 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding "that the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims"
Seeger v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co.
681 F.3d 274 (6th Cir. 2012) Cited 714 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer need not demonstrate that its investigation was “optimal or that it left no stone unturned”
Younis v. Pinnacle Airlines, Inc.
610 F.3d 359 (6th Cir. 2010) Cited 424 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff had not established prima face case where plaintiff failed to identify a similarly-situated employee outside of the protected class who received more favorable treatment
Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.
360 F.3d 544 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 457 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that statement was not direct evidence of animus because it was not based upon "inaccurate and stigmatizing" stereotypes
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,681 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

Petzel v. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. et al

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 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"

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 a plaintiff terminated for "misuse of [an employer’s] property" could not rely on comparators allegedly guilty of "absenteeism" and "insubordination"

Holding that failure to correct the actions of subordinates was not enough to rise to the level of liability required under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

Holding "that the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine burden-shifting framework does not apply to the summary judgment analysis of Title VII mixed-motive claims"

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

Holding that plaintiff had not established prima face case where plaintiff failed to identify a similarly-situated employee outside of the protected class who received more favorable treatment

Holding that statement was not direct evidence of animus because it was not based upon "inaccurate and stigmatizing" stereotypes

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