Michael Opare-Addo, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

11 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,093 times 96 Legal Analyses
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
509 U.S. 502 (1993) Cited 12,372 times 8 Legal Analyses
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
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,165 times 9 Legal Analyses
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
460 U.S. 711 (1983) Cited 2,417 times 5 Legal Analyses
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
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,663 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,176 times 4 Legal Analyses
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
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,623 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
Morgan v. Hilti, Inc.
108 F.3d 1319 (10th Cir. 1997) Cited 1,168 times
Holding that the plaintiff failed to create an inference of pretext when the disciplinary actions "simply completed the disciplinary process already set in motion" before the plaintiff had engaged in protected speech
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) Cited 248 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation, Etc.
425 F. Supp. 318 (D. Mass. 1976) Cited 87 times
Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,019 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Michael Opare-Addo, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

11 Cited authorities

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

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

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"

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

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

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

Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

Holding that the plaintiff failed to create an inference of pretext when the disciplinary actions "simply completed the disciplinary process already set in motion" before the plaintiff had engaged in protected speech

Holding that, in balancing the scope of reasonable opposition conduct, "[t]he requirements of the job and the tolerable limits of conduct in a particular setting must be explored"

Holding that discharge six months after EEOC settlement and a month after an informal complaint satisfies causation requirement

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"