Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green"
Results 61 - 80
of 92
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Aug 2015, 6:10 am
IDX Systems Corp. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 3:12 pm
In Young v. [read post]
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]
28 Mar 2015, 8:24 am
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]
24 May 2014, 5:13 pm
La Corte explica que esto viene de "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division also noted that the supervisor who allegedly indicated a discriminatory motive was not the ultimate decision-maker, and the record shows that BOE immediately offered Petitioner another tenured track position after terminating his employment in the Homebound Program.The court commented that the same result would obtain whether the matter was analyzed pursuant to the traditional framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green,… [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]
15 Aug 2012, 8:29 am
See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 6:18 pm
In Greene v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
Mikitish, Douglas K. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 9:27 pm
” 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]
28 Oct 2011, 7:27 am
Per the 1973 Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 11:20 am
In cases where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, and the evidence is circumstantial, discrimination will have to be shown by meeting the requirements of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 6:15 pm
Supreme Court Case of 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]
25 Apr 2011, 11:34 am
(See 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]
13 Sep 2010, 8:43 am
But his administration’s decision on this case, Connecticut v. [read post]
19 Mar 2010, 6:16 am
The plaintiff bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case and must show he or she is a member of a protected class, was qualified for his job, suffered an adverse employment action, and that others not in the protected class were treated more favorably [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
