Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green" Results 41 - 60 of 100
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Aug 2016, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
” Does this mean that we can forget about shifting burdens of proof, as in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 3:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
” Does this mean that we can forget about shifting burdens of proof, as in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:36 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Addressing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of NYPD and certain of its named staff members [City Defendants], the Appellate Division said that an action brought under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion," citing Persaud v Walgreens Co., 161 AD3d 1019. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 5:36 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Addressing a motion for summary judgment on behalf of NYPD and certain of its named staff members [City Defendants], the Appellate Division said that an action brought under the NYCHRL must be analyzed under both the framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, and under the newer mixed motive framework, which imposes a lesser burden on a plaintiff opposing such a motion," citing Persaud v Walgreens Co., 161 AD3d 1019. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 4:50 am
The Circuit Court said that Wharff’s disparate treatment claim pursuant to Title VII [42 USC § 2000e et seq.] was to be analyzed under the tripartite burden shifting framework laid out in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 4:30 am by Donna Ballman
Thus, unlike in a typical case under Title VII involving the burden-shifting method of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
”Affirming the district court’s decision granting CUNY summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the court explained that under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2021, 6:06 am by Thomas J. Crane
See, e.g., Graham v Long Island RR, 230 F.3d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 2000); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
13 Nov 2018, 3:21 pm by Jessica Perry
” The Tenth Circuit noted that some sister circuits have disagreed, but opined that those courts reached the wrong conclusion based on an erroneous interpretation of the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2017, 11:54 am by Liisa Speaker
It upheld the lower court decision.The dissent, written by Judge Servitto, referred to a US Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp v Green, 411 US 792, as a framework for evaluating age-discrimination claims. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 11:11 am by Mays & Kerr LLC
The trial court analyzed those arguments under the standard created by a 1973 US Supreme Court case, McDonnell Douglas v. [read post]
2 Aug 2016, 4:44 am by Thomas J. Crane
Pointing to employment law, the court noted the circumstantial method of proof first enunciated by McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 8:33 am by Melanie Osborne
 The court also found that Conitz failed to show the elements of a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
5 Apr 2023, 6:44 am by zola.support.team
Supreme Court to see who will carry the burden of proof in such cases This is known as the “McDonnell Douglass framework” as it came from the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 8:49 pm by Francis G.X. Pileggi
The Court was guided by the analytical framework articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]