Alan J. Seinfeld, Cathy Rich, Jo-Ann Lechner and Jack Israel, Complainants, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

4 Cited authorities

Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,216 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"
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
507 U.S. 604 (1993) Cited 1,941 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,679 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 "
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,626 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"

Alan J. Seinfeld, Cathy Rich, Jo-Ann Lechner and Jack Israel, Complainants, v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary, Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service), Agency.

4 Cited authorities

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"

Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins

Holding that age and years of service, pension status, or seniority are "analytically distinct" and an employer may rely on one while ignoring the other

Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

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 "

Pullman-Standard v. Swint

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"