When.com Web Search

  1. Ad

    related to: is verification a false statement of employment discrimination claim example

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. Babb v. Wilkie - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babb_v._Wilkie

    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 ...

  4. Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_v._FBL_Financial...

    Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 FBL Financial Services, Inc. , 557 U.S. 167 (2009), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2009, involving the standard of proof required for a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

  5. The latest Supreme Court decision could throw a wrench into ...

    www.aol.com/finance/latest-supreme-court...

    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 ...

  6. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire...

    Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] The result was that employers could not be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims were based on decisions made by the employer 180 days or more before the claim.

  7. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Department_of...

    Case history; Prior: 608 F.2d 563 (vacated and remanded): Holding; In a Title VII discrimination claim, the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff throughout the trial; a shift to a defendant's burden is merely an intermediate evidentiary burden requiring the defendant to sustain only the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion.

  8. Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

    Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

  9. Former 'Jeopardy!' staffers file discrimination, retaliation ...

    www.aol.com/news/former-jeopardy-staffers-file...

    Former "Jeopardy!" and "Wheel of Fortune" staffers have filed employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation complaints against Sony Pictures Entertainment after the Culver City-based ...