13 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2000–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Furline v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2022Under either the McDonnell Douglas standard or a “mixed motives” analysis, “the burden of persuasion ‘remains at all times’ with the plaintiff employee to prove that the employer took adverse action for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason (in whole or part).” Id. 20 We have not had occasion to squarely address the level of causation necessary for a “mixed motives” claim. 5 In Babb v. Wilkie, 206 L. 2022Under either the McDonnell Douglas standard or a “mixed motives” analysis, “the burden of persuasion ‘remains at all times’ with the plaintiff employee to prove that the employer took adverse action for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason (in whole or part).” Id. 20 We have not had occasion to squarely address the level of causation necessary for a “mixed motives” claim. 5 In Babb v. Wilkie, 206 L. | 1 | 3 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2008McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that “if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). 22 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 23 . 2008McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that “if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). 22 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 23 . | 1 | 2 |
Hollins v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'ngreen2 sentences2008The McDonnell Douglas framework requires that the plaintiff first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which then "raises a rebuttable presumption that the employer’s conduct amounted to unlawful discrimination.” Hollins, 760 A.2d at 571 . 2008The McDonnell Douglas framework requires that the plaintiff first establish a prima facie case of discrimination, which then "raises a rebuttable presumption that the employer’s conduct amounted to unlawful discrimination.” Hollins, 760 A.2d at 571 . | 1 | 2 |
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Alton Packaging Corp.green2 sentences2005It has been held that "the McDonnell Douglas test 'is to be applied in cases where the circumstantial evidence is the only proof of discrimination.’ ” Id. at 574 (quoting Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Alton Packaging Corp., 901 F.2d 920, 923 (11th Cir.1990)). 11 . 2005It has been held that "the McDonnell Douglas test 'is to be applied in cases where the circumstantial evidence is the only proof of discrimination.’ ” Id. at 574 (quoting Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Alton Packaging Corp., 901 F.2d 920, 923 (11th Cir.1990)). 11 . | 1 | 2 |
Babb v. Wilkiegreen2 sentences2022Under either the McDonnell Douglas standard or a “mixed motives” analysis, “the burden of persuasion ‘remains at all times’ with the plaintiff employee to prove that the employer took adverse action for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason (in whole or part).” Id. 20 We have not had occasion to squarely address the level of causation necessary for a “mixed motives” claim. 5 In Babb v. Wilkie, 206 L. 2022Under either the McDonnell Douglas standard or a “mixed motives” analysis, “the burden of persuasion ‘remains at all times’ with the plaintiff employee to prove that the employer took adverse action for a discriminatory or retaliatory reason (in whole or part).” Id. 20 We have not had occasion to squarely address the level of causation necessary for a “mixed motives” claim. 5 In Babb v. Wilkie, 206 L. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Bernankegreen2 sentences2014Cf. Jones, 557 F.3d at 679 (holding that evidence “the employer had knowledge of the employee’s protected activity, and the adverse personnel action took place shortly after that activity” was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that his supervisors knew of the protected activity). 2014Cf. Jones, 557 F.3d at 679 (holding that evidence “the employer had knowledge of the employee’s protected activity, and the adverse personnel action took place shortly after that activity” was sufficient to establish a prima facie case that his supervisors knew of the protected activity). | 1 | 1 |
Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.green2 sentences2008McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that “if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). 22 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 23 . 2008McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that “if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). 22 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 23 . | 1 | 1 |
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurstongreen2 sentences2008McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that “if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). 22 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 23 . 2008McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); see also Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511 , 122 S.Ct. 992 , 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (noting that “if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination, he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case”); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985) (“[T]he McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.”). 22 . 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. 23 . | 1 | 1 |
A.R. Peter Lafond v. General Physics Services Corporationgreen2 sentences2006Corp., 50 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir.1995) (finding no error in the district court’s application of the McDonnell Douglas analysis to Connecticut’s whistleblower act). 2006Corp., 50 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir.1995) (finding no error in the district court’s application of the McDonnell Douglas analysis to Connecticut’s whistleblower act). | 1 | 1 |
Patterson v. McLean Credit Unionred2 sentences2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). 2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Propp v. Counterpart International
green
2 sentences2023A. Prima Facie Case of Retaliation “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) [she] was engaged in a protected activity . . . ; (2) the employer took an adverse action against [her]; and (3) a causal 11 connection existed between [her] opposition or protected activity and the adverse action taken against [her].” Propp, 39 A.3d at 863 . 1. 2023A. Prima Facie Case of Retaliation “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, the plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) [she] was engaged in a protected activity . . . ; (2) the employer took an adverse action against [her]; and (3) a causal 11 connection existed between [her] opposition or protected activity and the adverse action taken against [her].” Propp, 39 A.3d at 863 . 1. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Once appellant made a prim a facie case and the employer presented a non-discriminatory reason, “the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens — disappeared, and the sole remaining issue was discrimination vel non.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2008Once appellant made a prim a facie case and the employer presented a non-discriminatory reason, “the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens — disappeared, and the sole remaining issue was discrimination vel non.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Gay Rights Coalition of Georgetown University Law Center v. Georgetown University
green
2 sentences2008See D.C.Code § 2-1402.68, note 5, supra; Griggs, 401 U.S. 424 , 91 S.Ct. 849 , 28 L.Ed.2d 158 ; Gay Rights Coalition, 536 A.2d at 29 . [8] It is understood that the McDonnell Douglas test is a means to establish discrimination inferentially by circumstantial evidence. 2008See D.C.Code § 2-1402.68, note 5, supra; Griggs, 401 U.S. 424 , 91 S.Ct. 849 , 28 L.Ed.2d 158 ; Gay Rights Coalition, 536 A.2d at 29 . [8] It is understood that the McDonnell Douglas test is a means to establish discrimination inferentially by circumstantial evidence. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
green
2 sentences2008See D.C.Code § 2-1402.68, note 5, supra; Griggs, 401 U.S. 424 , 91 S.Ct. 849 , 28 L.Ed.2d 158 ; Gay Rights Coalition, 536 A.2d at 29 . [8] It is understood that the McDonnell Douglas test is a means to establish discrimination inferentially by circumstantial evidence. 2008See D.C.Code § 2-1402.68, note 5, supra; Griggs, 401 U.S. 424 , 91 S.Ct. 849 , 28 L.Ed.2d 158 ; Gay Rights Coalition, 536 A.2d at 29 . [8] It is understood that the McDonnell Douglas test is a means to establish discrimination inferentially by circumstantial evidence. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dalmau v. Viçäo Aérea Rio-Grandense, S.A.
green
2 sentences2008Because the trial court ruled that the DCHRA did not support a claim of national origin discrimination based on linguistic characteristics, the parties did not develop a factual basis from which the jury could determine whether the English proficiency requirement was, as claimed by appellee, required to perform the duties of the position appellant held, as in Fragante, see also Dalmau v. Vicao Aerea Rio-Grandense, S.A., 337 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D.Fla.2004) (upholding Brazilian airline’s requirement that cargo sales representatives speak fluent Portuguese), or whether it was a pretextual requireme 2008Because the trial court ruled that the DCHRA did not support a claim of national origin discrimination based on linguistic characteristics, the parties did not develop a factual basis from which the jury could determine whether the English proficiency requirement was, as claimed by appellee, required to perform the duties of the position appellant held, as in Fragante, see also Dalmau v. Vicao Aerea Rio-Grandense, S.A., 337 F.Supp.2d 1299 (S.D.Fla.2004) (upholding Brazilian airline’s requirement that cargo sales representatives speak fluent Portuguese), or whether it was a pretextual requireme | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Dafro M. JEFFERIES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HARRIS COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION ASSOCIATION Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
green
2 sentences2007In Jefferies the Fifth Circuit held that black women are a “distinct protected subgroup” for purposes of the McDonnell Douglas test. 615 F.2d at 1034 . 2007In Jefferies the Fifth Circuit held that black women are a “distinct protected subgroup” for purposes of the McDonnell Douglas test. 615 F.2d at 1034 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights
green
2 sentences2005It has been held that "the McDonnell Douglas test 'is to be applied in cases where the circumstantial evidence is the only proof of discrimination.’ ” Id. at 574 (quoting Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Alton Packaging Corp., 901 F.2d 920, 923 (11th Cir.1990)). 11 . 2005It has been held that "the McDonnell Douglas test 'is to be applied in cases where the circumstantial evidence is the only proof of discrimination.’ ” Id. at 574 (quoting Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Alton Packaging Corp., 901 F.2d 920, 923 (11th Cir.1990)). 11 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Barbara Franklin McKenna v. Caspar W. Weinberger, Secretary of Defense
green
2 sentences2001But under the McDonnell-Douglas standard, as applied to retaliation cases, the plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity, which she has not heretofore been afforded, to "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reason was but a pretext for retaliation.” McKenna, supra, 234 U.S.App.D.C. at 304 , 729 F.2d at 790 . 2001But under the McDonnell-Douglas standard, as applied to retaliation cases, the plaintiff is entitled to an opportunity, which she has not heretofore been afforded, to "prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proffered reason was but a pretext for retaliation.” McKenna, supra, 234 U.S.App.D.C. at 304 , 729 F.2d at 790 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
green
2 sentences2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). 2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). 2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
green
2 sentences2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). 2000Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ) (emphasis in original); accord, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 187 , 109 S.Ct. 2363 , 105 L.Ed.2d 132 (1989); Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.