Terry L. Greathouse, Complainant, v. Gregory R. Dahlberg, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, (Corps of Engineers), Agency.

9 Cited authorities

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
411 U.S. 792 (1973) Cited 53,187 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
Tex. Dept. of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine
450 U.S. 248 (1981) Cited 20,194 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"
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,673 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 1,625 times 4 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"
Wrenn v. Gould
808 F.2d 493 (6th Cir. 1987) Cited 449 times
Holding that an employer can consider factors external to a job description when selecting among qualified candidates
Heyman v. Queens Village Comm. for Mental Hlth
198 F.3d 68 (2d Cir. 1999) Cited 280 times
Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease
Ruggles v. California Polytechnic State Univ
797 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 143 times
Holding that “plaintiff meets her prima facie burden by showing that 1
Swanks v. Washington Met. Area Transit
179 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 50 times
Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))
Canham v. Oberlin College
666 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1981) Cited 10 times
In Canham v. Oberlin College, 666 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 977, 102 S.Ct. 2242, 72 L.Ed.2d 851 (1982), the claim was sex discrimination.

Terry L. Greathouse, Complainant, v. Gregory R. Dahlberg, Acting Secretary, Department of the Army, (Corps of Engineers), Agency.

9 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 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 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 can consider factors external to a job description when selecting among qualified candidates

Finding that an employer could "regard as" disabled an employee who had lymphoma where the employer had knowledge of employee's diagnosis and a previous employee had died from the same disease

Holding that “plaintiff meets her prima facie burden by showing that 1

Observing that an employer "`may not obtain summary judgment by declaring it has a policy when [the employee] may have evidence that [the employer] follows the policy . . . selectively'" (quoting Baert v. Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626, 632 (7th Cir. 1998))

In Canham v. Oberlin College, 666 F.2d 1057 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 977, 102 S.Ct. 2242, 72 L.Ed.2d 851 (1982), the claim was sex discrimination.