When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_burden...

    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.

  3. Mixed motive discrimination - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_motive_discrimination

    If the evidence of discrimination is only circumstantial, the appropriate framework is the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. See generally Fakete v. Aetna, Inc. [ 3 ] (using "direct evidence" to describe "mixed-motive" cases and noting that pretext cases arise when the plaintiff presents only indirect or circumstantial evidence of ...

  4. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Corp._v...

    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

  5. Disparate treatment - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_treatment

    In the majority of cases, the plaintiff lacks direct evidence of discrimination and must prove discriminatory intent indirectly by inference. The Supreme Court analyzes these cases using the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting formula. The analysis is as follows: [10] (1) The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

  6. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_v._Sanderson...

    She then turned to the next stage of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to determine whether the defendant had then provided adequate evidence that the employment decision in question had been made for "a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason." [6] That burden, too, was met, according to O'Connor's analysis.

  7. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swierkiewicz_v._Sorema_N._A.

    Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2002. The Court held that for complaints in employment discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not required to allege specific facts that establish a prima facie case as required by the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

  8. Category:McDonnell Douglas - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:McDonnell_Douglas

    McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting; McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green This page was last edited on 24 May 2024, at 01:26 (UTC). Text is available under the Creative ...

  9. Talk:McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:McDonnell_Douglas...

    Start a discussion about improving the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting page Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the " McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting " page.