Clara E. Murray, Complainant, v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Agency.

14 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,686 times 100 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 12,462 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 20,329 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 2,428 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 9,717 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 1,632 times 5 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"
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan
417 U.S. 188 (1974) Cited 1,443 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption
Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
567 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1976) Cited 355 times
Holding that under Title VII class action, single-filing cannot revive claims that are no longer viable at the time of filing
Hochstadt v. Worcester Foundation for Experimental Biology
545 F.2d 222 (1st Cir. 1976) Cited 249 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"
Kouba v. Allstate Ins. Co.
691 F.2d 873 (9th Cir. 1982) Cited 109 times 24 Legal Analyses
In Kouba, we cautioned that the use of prior pay to defend against equal-pay violations "can easily be used to capitalize on the unfairly low salaries historically paid to women."
Section 206 - Minimum wage
29 U.S.C. § 206 Cited 9,166 times 103 Legal Analyses
Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”
Section 3109 - Employment of experts and consultants; temporary or intermittent
5 U.S.C. § 3109 Cited 32 times 3 Legal Analyses
(a) For the purpose of this section- (1) "agency" has the meaning given it by section 5721 of this title; and (2) "appropriation" includes funds made available by statute under section 9104 of title 31. (b) When authorized by an appropriation or other statute, the head of an agency may procure by contract the temporary (not in excess of 1 year) or intermittent services of experts or consultants or an organization thereof, including stenographic reporting services. Services procured under this section

Clara E. Murray, Complainant, v. Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), Agency.

14 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 "[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 an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption

Holding that under Title VII class action, single-filing cannot revive claims that are no longer viable at the time of filing

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"

In Kouba, we cautioned that the use of prior pay to defend against equal-pay violations "can easily be used to capitalize on the unfairly low salaries historically paid to women."

Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”