Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green" Results 61 - 80 of 97
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
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]
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]
19 Feb 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
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]
24 Jan 2014, 7:27 am by Joy Waltemath
Finally, the court pointed out that when the Supreme Court established the elements of a Title VII prima facie case in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, it did not include any element that depended on breaking a contract. [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]
  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]
2 Feb 2012, 8:30 am by Steven G. Pearl
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 by admin
Per the 1973 Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 11:20 am by Donna Eng
  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]
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]
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]