Search for: "McDonnell Douglas Corporation"
Results 41 - 60
of 69
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2007, 9:54 am
Katz, Reclaiming McDonnell Douglas, 83 Notre Dame L. [read post]
3 Apr 2011, 10:04 am
For example, when Boeing acquires McDonnell Douglas, a search today does not connect these two entities to provide an accurate picture. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 7:37 pm
Brett McDonnell: ... let me briefly lament the D.C. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 4:45 pm
The theme for this year is tort law as a response to corporate wrongdoing. [read post]
15 Apr 2008, 7:49 am
McDonnell Douglas, 468 F.Supp. 521 (D.Ariz.1979). [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 7:12 am
Katz, Reclaiming McDonnell Douglas, 83 Notre Dame L. [read post]
19 Mar 2007, 11:46 am
In the employment context, provided the employee's case survives summary judgment (in federal court, evaluated using the McDonnell-Douglas framework), the jury decides whether the employer's stated reason is a pretext. [read post]
20 Aug 2015, 8:31 am
Furthermore, Judge Ludington argued, “deploying this sort-of disparate impact analysis into the calculus of the McDonnell-Douglas prima facie case evidentiary framework has no express limitation. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 7:27 am
Per the 1973 Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 6:45 am
Moreover, because she presented direct evidence of sexual harassment, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis did not apply and the employer’s argument that it fired her for legitimate reasons — insubordination and complaints about her work — did not change the outcome. [read post]
27 Jun 2007, 9:41 am
Katz, Reclaiming McDonnell Douglas, 83 Notre Dame L. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 2:00 am
No Sex Bias Claim Because Employee Fails to Meet Employer’s Expectations To establish a disparate treatment discrimination claim, an employee must provide direct evidence of bias, which Gibson didn’t allege, or establish circumstantial evidence to show a violation under the McDonnell Douglas standard. [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 2:00 am
No Sex Bias Claim Because Employee Fails to Meet Employer’s Expectations To establish a disparate treatment discrimination claim, an employee must provide direct evidence of bias, which Gibson didn’t allege, or establish circumstantial evidence to show a violation under the McDonnell Douglas standard. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 5:54 pm
Air Wisconsin Airlines Corporation, File No. 11a0177 (Sixth Circuit July 6, 2011), provides a good illustration of the points involved in your inquiry. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 8:16 am
The court held that the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework does not apply to First Amendment retaliation claims, which are governed by a more plaintiff-friendly standard. [read post]
28 Nov 2023, 5:24 am
Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
18 May 2020, 9:00 pm
The Supreme Court rejected both interpretations of the PDA’s second clause.In the Young ruling (which is analyzed in greater detail here and here), the Court adapted the McDonnell-Douglas framework, which provides a basis for smoking out discriminatory intent when the employer denies it, for pregnancy accommodation claims. [read post]
6 Aug 2010, 12:47 pm
Moderator: Professor James Wilets, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center Speakers: Professor Melissa Waters, Washington University School of Law; Professor Howard Wasserman, Florida International University College of Law; Professor Frank Ravitch, Michigan State University College of Law; Professor Otis Stephens, The University of Tennessee College of Law; Professor Ronald Krotoszynski, The University of Alabama School of Law Supreme Court… [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 12:18 pm
But does she have what it takes to satisfy her third-stage burden under the McDonnell Douglas test? [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 10:13 am
In Young, the Court held that an individual pregnant worker who seeks to show disparate treatment under Title VII through indirect evidence may do so through application of the McDonnell Douglas framework, but such plaintiffs are not required to show that the employer’s policy rationale was intentionally biased; rather, the employee can satisfy her burden of showing pretext by demonstrating that the policy put a “significant burden” on pregnant employees, and that… [read post]
