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 ...
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.
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 ...
The Act represented the first effort since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to modify some of the basic procedural and substantive rights provided by federal law in employment discrimination cases. It provided the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introduced the possibility of emotional distress damages and limited ...
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]
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 ...
Before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional, disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe that it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action.