| Title VII Prima Facie Cases: Volume 1 Contributor(s): Publications, Landmark (Author) |
|
 |
ISBN: 1686803508 ISBN-13: 9781686803505 Publisher: Independently Published OUR PRICE: $36.29 Product Type: Paperback - Other Formats Published: August 2019 |
| Additional Information |
| BISAC Categories: - Law | Labor & Employment - Law | Civil Rights |
| Physical Information: 1.1" H x 6" W x 9" (1.59 lbs) 546 pages |
| Descriptions, Reviews, Etc. |
| Publisher Description: THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss the elements of a Title VII prima facie case. Volume 1 covers decisions issued by the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. * * * Title VII forbids (i) employment practices that discriminate against an employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, and (ii) retaliation against an employee for opposing adverse actions that she reasonably suspects to be unlawful under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3; Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 62-64, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006); Boyer-Liberto, 786 F.3d at 276-77, 281. * * * A plaintiff may prove that an employer took action with discriminatory or retaliatory intent through direct evidence or through the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green. Foster v. Univ. of Md.-E. Shore, 787 F.3d 243, 249 (4th Cir. 2015) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). Under the burden-shifting framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing: "(1) she engaged in a protected activity; (2) the employer acted adversely against her; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the asserted adverse action." See Ziskie v. Mineta, 547 F.3d 220, 229 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Holland v. Washington Homes, Inc., 487 F.3d 208, 218 (4th Cir. 2007)). After the prima facie showing is made, " t]he burden then shifts to the employer] to show that its purportedly retaliatory action was in fact the result of a legitimate non-retaliatory reason." Foster, 787 F.3d at 250. "If the employer makes this showing, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to rebut the employer's evidence by demonstrating that the employer's purported nonretaliatory reasons were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Strothers v. City of Laurel, Maryland, 895 F. 3d 317 (4th Cir. 2018). |