Search for: "EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp" Results 1 - 20 of 20
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Aug 2016, 4:39 am by Jon Hyman
The burden-shifting framework created by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 8:00 am by Steven G. Pearl
The district court granted the Corps' motion for summary judgment: The court declined to analyze the motion in accordance with McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 7:13 am by Chris Lazarini
Next, the Court conducts the three-part burden shifting analysis developed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 7:13 am by Chris Lazarini
Next, the Court conducts the three-part burden shifting analysis developed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 7:13 am by Chris Lazarini
Next, the Court conducts the three-part burden shifting analysis developed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 9:27 pm
-- Turner v McKesson Corp, Case No. 2:12-CV-2053-SLB (NDAla)- Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss granted in part and denied in part.   [read post]
28 Mar 2015, 8:24 am by Melissa Raphan
    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]
3 Apr 2007, 1:22 am
McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 460-61 (8th Cir.2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 929, 121 S.Ct. 309, 148 L.Ed.2d 248 (2000) ("It remains the law in this Circuit that 'relief under Rule 60(b)(1) for judicial error other than for judicial inadvertence' is not available. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 11:36 am
For example, in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 1:41 pm by Theodore T. Eidukas
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]
16 Sep 2013, 4:08 am
Therefore, to survive a Motion for Summary Judgment, Ruggles was required to establish a circumstantial case under a burden shifting framework that the United States Supreme Court set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 12:59 pm by Lisa Whittaker
Although the court believed Demyanovich had successfully provided direct evidence of retaliation, the court again employed the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Motors Corp., No. 08-1113ADA - Benefits to former employeeso o SCOTUS docket hereAdam v. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 1:52 pm by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Those decisions, which upheld employers’ affirmative action plans against Title VII challenges, called for application of the three-step burden-shifting framework set forth by the High Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green (3 EPD ¶8607). [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:27 am by admin
Per the 1973 Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 6:30 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
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]
  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]