Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Direct evidence: Although direct evidence of discrimination can be very powerful, courts often give little weight to discriminatory remarks made by persons other than decision makers, "stray" remarks not pertaining directly to the plaintiffs, or remarks that are distant in time to the disputed employment decision.
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.
"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 Supreme Court weighs whether a Texas woman who served on a small-town council can pursue a retaliation claim after she was arrested following her criticisms of a senior official.
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday revived the civil rights claim of a Texas woman who had sued her city for what she claims was a politically motivated arrest.
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.
An NYPD worker claims she faced retaliation and discrimination after she begged to be reassigned after an alleged domestic violence attack, she claims in a fiery new lawsuit. Fingerprint tech ...
In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime. The New York State Unified Court System discusses false alibis (in the context of "consciousness of guilt") as a form of admissible evidence: [1]