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 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.
Under the Court's ruling in Inclusive Communities, in order to prove a case of disparate impact housing discrimination, the following must occur: First, a plaintiff must make out a prima facie case, drawing an explicit, causal connection between a policy or practice and the disparate impact or statistical disparity.
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]
My last article was about how to prove an age discrimination case. Now that you know how to prove age discrimination, what next? What do you do if you think age discrimination is going on in your ...
In employment discrimination cases where the only evidence of discrimination is indirect, courts evaluate the claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. To have an actionable claim under Title VII, and other employment discrimination statutes, the plaintiff must make out a prima facie (on its face) case of discrimination. This ...
"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 ...
The big question is whether, now that disability has been declared a disease, the overweight will find more legal protection under discrimination laws. Well, the lawsuits are already flying.