Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green"
Results 81 - 98
of 98
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
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]
29 Oct 2010, 1:34 pm
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]
11 Feb 2010, 6:09 pm
The Supreme Court also dropped a footnote, however, stating that:"the Court has not definitively decided whether the evidentiary framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2009, 9:33 am
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 8:17 pm
Thus, courts in recent years have simply taken the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Motors Corp., No. 08-1113ADA - Benefits to former employeeso o SCOTUS docket hereAdam v. [read post]
22 Mar 2009, 6:18 am
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 3:12 am
Where a plaintiff cannot produce direct evidence of an employer's discriminatory intent, the plaintiff may prove his case with circumstantial evidence under the burden-shifting scheme of proof established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2009, 4:10 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]
5 Jan 2009, 5:29 am
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2007, 2:18 am
The decision, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2007, 6:27 pm
” In it, I outline the basics of proving discrimination through disparate treatment evidence, discussing McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
20 Aug 2007, 5:04 pm
The district court dismissed the Lindsays' complaint, concluding that they failed to plead facts establishing each element of a prima facie case as set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 3:20 pm
Although the burden shifted to the defendant under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 1:42 pm
The First holds that merely being excluded from the management decisions is not enough under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
