Clemente M. v. Dep't of the Army

13 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 242,000 times 39 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 221,284 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. v. Nassar
570 U.S. 338 (2013) Cited 5,446 times 78 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff must establish but-for causation in a Title VII retaliation claim
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,367 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 12,411 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
557 U.S. 167 (2009) Cited 4,621 times 83 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff must establish but-for causation in an ADEA disparate treatment claim
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,242 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"
West v. Gibson
527 U.S. 212 (1999) Cited 113 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated
Oliver v. Digital Equipment Corp.
846 F.2d 103 (1st Cir. 1988) Cited 413 times
Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer
Hashimoto v. Dalton
118 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 1997) Cited 310 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that temporal proximity of "a few months" between a protected activity and an adverse employment action "suffices to establish a minimal prima facie case of retaliation, [but] it does nothing to refute the government's proffered legitimate reasons for disciplining [the plaintiff]"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,037 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"

Clemente M. v. Dep't of the Army

13 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence is "so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that a plaintiff must establish but-for causation in a Title VII retaliation claim

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 that a plaintiff must establish but-for causation in an ADEA disparate treatment claim

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 the phrase "appropriate remedies" in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–16(b) includes remedies not expressly enumerated

Holding that discharge over two and one half years after employee filed EEOC complaint was insufficient showing of retaliation to avoid summary judgment for employer

Holding that temporal proximity of "a few months" between a protected activity and an adverse employment action "suffices to establish a minimal prima facie case of retaliation, [but] it does nothing to refute the government's proffered legitimate reasons for disciplining [the plaintiff]"

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