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.
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 ...
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.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the Department because it found Muldrow did not suffer a materially adverse action and thus failed to satisfy the "adverse employment action" prong in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. [11] The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. [12]
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.
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.
"Mixed motive" discrimination is a category of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.. Where the plaintiff has shown intentional discrimination in a mixed motive case, the defendant can still avoid liability for money damages by demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made even in the absence of the impermissible ...
[45] [55] McDonnell Douglas built only a small wind tunnel test model. [56] [57] At its peak in mid-1990, McDonnell Douglas employed 132,500 people, but dropped to about 87,400 by the end of 1992. [58] In 1991, the MD-11 was not quite a success; ongoing tests of the MD-11 revealed a significant shortfall in the aircraft's performance.