Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp."
Results 81 - 100
of 178
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2009, 6:18 am
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 8:24 am
The Supreme Court’s Holding In its decision, the Supreme Court assessed Young’s disparate-treatment discrimination claim and focused largely on the indirect method of proof under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 9:00 am
20 Jan 2021, 9:00 am
30 Aug 2011, 3:07 pm
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 28 N.Y.2d 325, 330; Red Tulip, LLC v. [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 8:28 pm
Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 49 (2003) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 8:31 pm
McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 157, 171 [209 Cal.Rptr. 427], where the trial judge concluded damages were excessive based on juror declarations stating that the plaintiff's counsel would receive 33% of what we awarded to Mrs. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 7:50 am
McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 641-642, 653-655 [22-year old plaintiff was hit in the head and back with a 630-pound pipe, rendering him triplegic, with loss of all movement, sexual function, bladder and bowel control, and in constant pain, but with normal life expectancy; jury awards total economic and non-economic damages of $4,235,996, which the reviewing court upholds]; Niles v. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 9:23 am
(citing to McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 Dec 2010, 9:44 am
American NTN Bearing Manufacturing Corp., 495 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 2007), to his claims. [read post]
27 Nov 2009, 7:50 am
McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 626, 641-642, 653-655 [22-year old plaintiff was hit in the head and back with a 630-pound pipe, rendering him triplegic, with loss of all movement, sexual function, bladder and bowel control, and in constant pain, but with normal life expectancy; jury awards total economic and non-economic damages of $4,235,996, which the reviewing court upholds]; Niles v. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 4:44 am
Pointing to employment law, the court noted the circumstantial method of proof first enunciated by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 8:29 am
See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 7:49 pm
--Bonefont-Igaravidez v Int’l Shipping Corp, 1stCir, October 14, 2011, No. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 3:30 am
Apply the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (retaliation). [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 6:00 am
JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93 (retaliation). [read post]
15 Apr 2024, 10:00 pm
Golub Corp., 2024 U.S. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 3:30 am
The Eleventh Circuit noted that a plaintiff who brings intentional-discrimination claims has several options available to her: [O]ne of which is by navigating the now-familiar three-part burden-shifting framework established by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 8:11 am
This McDonnell Douglas test, named for the case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
