Complainant, v. Tom J. Vilsack, Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Agency.

15 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 241,208 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 220,608 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"
  3. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,526 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"
  4. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,194 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
  5. Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

    450 U.S. 248 (1981)   Cited 20,198 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"
  6. Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters

    438 U.S. 567 (1978)   Cited 2,179 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
  7. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank Tr.

    487 U.S. 977 (1988)   Cited 1,402 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"
  8. Dothard v. Rawlinson

    433 U.S. 321 (1977)   Cited 793 times
    Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors
  9. Section 2000e - Definitions

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e   Cited 52,462 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
  10. Section 794 - Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs

    29 U.S.C. § 794   Cited 12,640 times   30 Legal Analyses
    Adopting ADA standards for Rehabilitation Act claims
  11. Section 791 - Employment of individuals with disabilities

    29 U.S.C. § 791   Cited 2,302 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 . . ."
  12. 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]”
  13. 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"
  14. Section 1614.109 - Hearings

    29 C.F.R. § 1614.109   Cited 133 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Governing administrative hearings
  15. 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"