Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

Holding in employment discrimination case that statistical evidence of employer's general policy and practice may be relevant circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent behind individual employment decision

St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination

Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

Holding in the Title VII context that the plaintiff's prima facie case creates "a legally mandatory, rebuttable presumption" that shifts the burden of proof to the employer, and "if the employer is silent in the face of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plaintiff"

U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens

Holding that because "[t]here will seldom be `eyewitness' testimony to the employer's mental process," evidence of the employer's discriminatory attitude in general is relevant and admissible to prove discrimination

Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

Holding that a district court was "entitled to consider the racial mix of the work force when trying to make the determination as to motivation" in the employment discrimination context

Board of Trustees v. Sweeney

Noting that "the employer's burden is satisfied if he simply `explains what he has done' or `produces evidence of legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons'"

Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Hlth

Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease

Neo Gen Screening, Inc. v. New England Newborn Screening Program

Swanks v. Washington Met. Area Transit

Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))