Search for: "United States v. McDonnell Douglas Corp." Results 1 - 20 of 53
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2022, 4:22 pm by Elyssa Sternberg
The United States Supreme Court established a framework for evaluating discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 10:46 am by Cyrus E. Phillips IV
Another chapter in the A-12 story has just been published by a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, this McDonnell Douglas Corp. and General Dynamics Corp. v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 7:59 am by admin
In the first seven days of this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed two lower court rulings in favor of employee-plaintiffs. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As a cause of action for breach of contract accrues and the statute of limitations commences when the contract is breached and Petitioner did not file suit within one year of the alleged breach, the Circuit Court opined that his breach of contract claim was untimely.* McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As a cause of action for breach of contract accrues and the statute of limitations commences when the contract is breached and Petitioner did not file suit within one year of the alleged breach, the Circuit Court opined that his breach of contract claim was untimely.* McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
In 2003, California lawmakers enacted Labor Code Section 1102.6, setting forth a framework for whistleblower retaliation claims that varied from the burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2011, 11:52 am by Lyle Denniston
The case’s origins go back to January 1988, when General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas Corp. [read post]
22 May 2009, 8:31 pm
McDonnell Douglas Corp., (1984) 163 Cal.App.3d 157, 171 [209 Cal.Rptr. 427], where the trial judge concluded damages were excessive based on juror declarations stating that the plaintiff's counsel would receive 33% of what we awarded to Mrs. [read post]