Terry D. Kinslow, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, (Great Lakes Area), Agency.

8 Cited authorities

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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"
  4. 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
  5. E.E.O.C. v. Ohio Edison Co.

    7 F.3d 541 (6th Cir. 1993)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that Title VII's protections against retaliation extended to situations where an employee was discriminated against because his representative opposed an unlawful employment practice
  6. Murphy v. Cadillac Rubber Plastics

    946 F. Supp. 1108 (W.D.N.Y. 1996)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that plaintiff’s affidavits and resignation letter, and attorney’s affirmation were "not ‘written instruments’ within the meaning of Rule 10(c)"
  7. De Medina v. Reinhardt

    444 F. Supp. 573 (D.D.C. 1978)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that Title VII prohibited retaliation against the plaintiff employee in reprisal for the protected activities of her spouse
  8. Thurman v. Robertshaw Control Co.

    869 F. Supp. 934 (N.D. Ga. 1994)   Cited 15 times
    Recognizing that "[i]n a case of an alleged retaliation for participation in a protected activity by a close relative who is a co-employee, the first element of the prima facie case is modified to require the plaintiff to show that the relative was engaged in statutorily protected expression."