Joseph A. Franklin, Complainant, v. John E. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service, Agency.

7 Cited authorities

  1. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc.

    530 U.S. 133 (2000)   Cited 21,528 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"
  2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

    411 U.S. 792 (1973)   Cited 53,203 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
  3. 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"
  4. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks

    509 U.S. 502 (1993)   Cited 12,388 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a trier of fact may infer discrimination upon rejecting an employer's proffered reason for termination
  5. U.S. Postal Service Bd. of Govs. v. Aikens

    460 U.S. 711 (1983)   Cited 2,419 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
  6. 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
  7. Walker v. Ford Motor Co.

    684 F.2d 1355 (11th Cir. 1982)   Cited 158 times
    Holding that plaintiff established hostile environment where racial harassment made plaintiff “feel unwanted and uncomfortable in his surroundings,” even though it was not directed at him