Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green"
Results 41 - 60
of 94
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2019, 5:36 am
"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
"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]
29 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
” Courts test FMLA retaliation claims under the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2020, 4:00 am
” Courts test FMLA retaliation claims under the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 5:29 am
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [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
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
”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
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
” 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
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
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
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
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]
10 Jul 2019, 3:30 am
Apply the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2009, 6:18 am
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
1 Mar 2011, 8:49 pm
The Court was guided by the analytical framework articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:08 pm
McDonnell Douglas, Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 6:15 pm
Supreme Court Case of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 8:30 am
In such a case, the disciplinary action is subject to the burden-shifting analysis articulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
