Search for: "McDonnell & McDonnell v. State"
Results 201 - 220
of 632
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2018, 8:28 pm
Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44, 49 (2003) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
16 Mar 2018, 6:48 am
Summary judgment for the employer was reversed on the contract claim (Balding v. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 9:21 am
Following the Court’s consolidation of the lawsuits, in Filipek v. [read post]
11 Feb 2018, 10:17 am
See, e.g., Board ofTrade ofCity ofChicago v. [read post]
10 Feb 2018, 10:59 am
A dental hygienist sued (Harris v Hutcheson) claiming she was discriminated against and terminated due to her weight. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 4:29 am
And, most employment cases depend on circumstantial evidence. in Robinson v. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 5:00 am
In the case of Carney v. [read post]
13 Dec 2017, 7:44 am
Wolff; Donald V. [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 4:24 am
” At National Review, Carrie Severino calls Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 4:56 am
The state high court first emphasized that under the McDonnell Douglas framework, which applied here, “a plaintiff need not prove that she was replaced by a member outside her protected class in order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 3:30 am
And in United States v. [read post]
9 Sep 2017, 9:17 pm
Speakers include: Donald Verrilli, Munger, Tolles & Olson; Erika Arner, Finnegan, Henderson; Paul Berghoff, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff; John Duffy, University of Virginia Law School; The Hon. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 10:09 am
United States. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 10:09 am
United States. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 3:40 pm
Merrick‘s analysis was predicated on the familiar McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework—which the Court held applied to state law discrimination claims under FEHA just as it would to federal Title VII claims—and thus has implications for any claims in federal court analyzed under that framework. [read post]
31 Aug 2017, 3:40 pm
Merrick‘s analysis was predicated on the familiar McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework—which the Court held applied to state law discrimination claims under FEHA just as it would to federal Title VII claims—and thus has implications for any claims in federal court analyzed under that framework. [read post]
29 Aug 2017, 6:59 am
” She stated that employees were required to contact her, before 8:00 am, if they were going to be absent or late. [read post]
18 Aug 2017, 8:25 am
In United States v. [read post]
10 Aug 2017, 7:02 am
For example, the sheriff claimed the employee submitted false work hours while attending the state law enforcement academy. [read post]
4 Aug 2017, 4:00 am
Summary judgment was also affirmed against their equal protection claim (Carson v. [read post]
