Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green"
Results 81 - 92
of 92
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Mar 2015, 1:41 pm
The court, therefore, rejected a per se argument and concluded that a pregnant worker seeking to show disparate treatment must satisfy the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 3:12 am
Where a plaintiff cannot produce direct evidence of an employer's discriminatory intent, the plaintiff may prove his case with circumstantial evidence under the burden-shifting scheme of proof established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2023, 12:30 pm
Under the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2023, 5:32 am
The court allowed plaintiff's race and sexual orientation discrimination claim to go forward: In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the Court applies the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 6:30 am
En los casos por discrimen en la jurisdicción federal es aplicable la doctrina que se conoce como el “McDonnell Douglas paradigm”, establecido por el Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos en McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:27 am
Per the 1973 Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
11 Aug 2023, 3:21 pm
The 4 Parts of a Federal Pregnancy Discrimination Case When you pursue a discrimination case under federal law (Title VII,) you have to meet the test created by the Supreme Court‘s decision in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
When there is no direct evidence of discrimination, plaintiffs can make use of the pretext model established by the Supreme Court in 1973 in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
Mikitish, Douglas K. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 8:17 pm
Thus, courts in recent years have simply taken the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Motors Corp., No. 08-1113ADA - Benefits to former employeeso o SCOTUS docket hereAdam v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
