Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 178
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Feb 2010, 6:09 pm
The Supreme Court also dropped a footnote, however, stating that:"the Court has not definitively decided whether the evidentiary framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 6:40 am by Kyle Dudek
She can do so in a variety of ways, one of which is by navigating the familiar burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 4:39 am by Jon Hyman
The burden-shifting framework created by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
27 Jan 2022, 4:22 pm by Elyssa Sternberg
The United States Supreme Court established a framework for evaluating discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
23 Aug 2016, 4:39 am by Jon Hyman
The burden-shifting framework created by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 May 2009, 1:29 pm
Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008). [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 2:51 pm by Parks, Chesin & Walbert
However, the name at the tips of employment lawyers’ tongues probably is the discrimination case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As a cause of action for breach of contract accrues and the statute of limitations commences when the contract is breached and Petitioner did not file suit within one year of the alleged breach, the Circuit Court opined that his breach of contract claim was untimely.* McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As a cause of action for breach of contract accrues and the statute of limitations commences when the contract is breached and Petitioner did not file suit within one year of the alleged breach, the Circuit Court opined that his breach of contract claim was untimely.* McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 7:59 am by admin
  The Court found that the trial judge wrongly applied the second and third prongs of the McDonnell Douglas frame work when it granted a motion for summary judgment for the County. [read post]