Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

25 Cited authorities

Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.
530 U.S. 133 (2000) Cited 21,534 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,213 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
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.
510 U.S. 17 (1993) Cited 12,643 times 23 Legal Analyses
Holding that "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"
Faragher v. Boca Raton
524 U.S. 775 (1998) Cited 9,480 times 101 Legal Analyses
Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,204 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"
Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (1998) Cited 7,233 times 93 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer is not liable for a hostile work environment created by one of its employees when "the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any sexually harassing behavior, and . . . the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise"
Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden
532 U.S. 268 (2001) Cited 5,534 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that the temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
438 U.S. 567 (1978) Cited 2,180 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
Corning Glass Works v. Brennan
417 U.S. 188 (1974) Cited 1,425 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employer has the burden of proof to show that it falls within the stated exemption
Henson v. City of Dundee
682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982) Cited 980 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that where a supervisor makes sexual overtures to employees of both genders, or where the conduct is equally offensive to male and female workers, the conduct may be actionable under state law, but it is not actionable as harassment under Title VII because men and women are accorded like treatment
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 52,487 times 130 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 206 - Minimum wage
29 U.S.C. § 206 Cited 9,060 times 101 Legal Analyses
Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”
Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities
29 U.S.C. § 791 Cited 2,303 times 6 Legal Analyses
Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
Section 1614.105 - Pre-complaint processing
29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 Cited 2,687 times 13 Legal Analyses
Requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally
Section 1604.11 - Sexual harassment
29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 Cited 958 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding employers liable for co-worker harassment if "the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action"
Section 1614.110 - Final action by agencies
29 C.F.R. § 1614.110 Cited 229 times 1 Legal Analyses
Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 140 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1620.14 - Testing equality of jobs
29 C.F.R. § 1620.14 Cited 93 times
Explaining that the requirements of substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility are separate tests, each of which must be met
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 83 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1620.15 - Jobs requiring equal skill in performance
29 C.F.R. § 1620.15 Cited 78 times
Discussing ability as a subfactor of skill
Section 1620.17 - Jobs requiring equal responsibility in performance
29 C.F.R. § 1620.17 Cited 58 times
Stating that "payment of a higher rate" to an employee who has "additional degree of responsibility which may materially affect the business operations of the employer" is permissible
Section 1620.16 - Jobs requiring equal effort in performance
29 C.F.R. § 1620.16 Cited 38 times
Stating that "[w]here substantial differences exist in the amount or degree of effort required to be expended in the performance of jobs, the equal pay standard cannot apply even though the jobs may be equal in all other respects"

Complainant, v. Robert McDonald, Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

25 Cited authorities

Holding that a "trier of fact can reasonably infer from the falsity of the explanation that the employer is dissembling to cover up a discriminatory purpose"

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 "no single factor is required" to show a hostile work environment, including "whether [the acts are] physically threatening"

Holding that, to be actionable, the alleged conduct "must be extreme" and "the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and occasional teasing" are not enough

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 temporal proximity requirement to establish a prima facie case "between an employer's knowledge of protected activity and an adverse employment action as sufficient evidence" must be "very close"

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

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

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

Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."

Requiring complainant initially to notify agency and make effort to resolve matter informally

Holding employers liable for co-worker harassment if "the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct, unless it can show that it took immediate and appropriate corrective action"

Compelling final decision “within 60 days of the end of the 30-day period for the complainant to request a hearing . . . where the complainant has not requested [one]”

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Explaining that the requirements of substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility are separate tests, each of which must be met

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Discussing ability as a subfactor of skill

Stating that "payment of a higher rate" to an employee who has "additional degree of responsibility which may materially affect the business operations of the employer" is permissible

Stating that "[w]here substantial differences exist in the amount or degree of effort required to be expended in the performance of jobs, the equal pay standard cannot apply even though the jobs may be equal in all other respects"