Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.
In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), the Supreme Court held that, in order to survive a motion for summary judgment, a plaintiff alleging discrimination under Title VII must make a prima facie showing of discrimination, the first in a series of shifting burdens of proof known as McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting. [2]
This framework, known as the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis, is now used by federal courts to interpret employment discrimination claims where no direct evidence of discriminatory intent can be found. [2] In 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion on Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court ruled that ...
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to decide whether it should be more difficult for workers from "majority backgrounds," such as white or heterosexual people, to prove workplace ...
Louisiana State University employment law professor William Corbett said that if Ames wins, "I think those who believe that reverse discrimination is a prevalent problem will see it as a victory ...
Good morning! Last week, a Supreme Court decision lowered the bar required for workers to prove harm when it comes to filing employment discrimination claims.. Although the ruling in Muldrow v.St ...
Title VII also applies to state, federal, local and other public employees. Employees of federal and state governments have additional protections against employment discrimination. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 prohibits discrimination in federal employment on the basis of conduct that does not affect job performance.
The McDonnell Douglas case established that, in an employment discrimination case: The plaintiff (employee) must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. [9] The defendant (employer) must produce evidence of a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions. If this occurs, then the presumption of discrimination dissipates. [11]