Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rightsgreen2 sentences2013Hosp., 973 A.2d 180 , 183 n. 4 (D.C.2009) (in unemployment compensation case, employer’s prima facie showing that employee repeatedly was absent or tardy after repeated warnings shifted burden to employee to show actions were not willful or deliberate, with burden shifting "back to the employer to disprove such evidence,” keeping the "ultimate burden of showing misconduct ... always on the employer”); Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’n on Human Rights, 515 A.2d 1095, 1099 (D.C. 1986) (in case alleging employment discrimination based on personal appearance, once plaintiff has 2012Second, once this prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption “by articulating ‘some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.’ ” Id. (quoting Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’n on Human Rights, 515 A.2d 1095, 1099 (D.C.1986)). | 3 | 3 |
McNeal v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2017Once we are satisfied that there is a prima fagie causal connection between the injury and employment, however, the burden of proof is- on the employer to rebut the presumption that the injury falls within the purview of the Act through “substantial evidence.” McNeal, supra, 917 A.2d at 656 (explaining employer’s burden). | 1 | 1 |
Logan v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2013Hosp., 973 A.2d 180 , 183 n. 4 (D.C.2009) (in unemployment compensation case, employer’s prima facie showing that employee repeatedly was absent or tardy after repeated warnings shifted burden to employee to show actions were not willful or deliberate, with burden shifting "back to the employer to disprove such evidence,” keeping the "ultimate burden of showing misconduct ... always on the employer”); Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’n on Human Rights, 515 A.2d 1095, 1099 (D.C. 1986) (in case alleging employment discrimination based on personal appearance, once plaintiff has | 1 | 1 |
Ferreira v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence1998This court in Ferreira v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, 531 A.2d 651, 660 (D.C.1987), took note of the aggravation rule in remanding the case to enable the employer to rebut the presumption of compensability. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
green
2 sentences1986Burdine, supra, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 . 1986Burdine, supra, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 . | 2 | 1985–1986 |
Washington Post v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Larry v. National Rehabilitation Hospital
green
1 sentence2013Hosp., 973 A.2d 180 , 183 n. 4 (D.C.2009) (in unemployment compensation case, employer’s prima facie showing that employee repeatedly was absent or tardy after repeated warnings shifted burden to employee to show actions were not willful or deliberate, with burden shifting "back to the employer to disprove such evidence,” keeping the "ultimate burden of showing misconduct ... always on the employer”); Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’n on Human Rights, 515 A.2d 1095, 1099 (D.C. 1986) (in case alleging employment discrimination based on personal appearance, once plaintiff has | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Arthur Young & Co. v. Sutherland
green
1 sentence2012Second, once this prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the presumption “by articulating ‘some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.’ ” Id. (quoting Atlantic Richfield Co. v. District of Columbia Comm’n on Human Rights, 515 A.2d 1095, 1099 (D.C.1986)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
McCamey v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
1 sentence2010Once the presumption is satisfied, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut that presumption by “bringing] forth ‘substantial evidence’ showing that the [ ] disability did not arise out of and in the course of employment.” Id. at 1199 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
green
2 sentences1993Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2746-2747 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (describing shift in burden of proof under corresponding federal statute). 17 Finally, if the employer has articulated some legitimate, non-diserimina-tory reason for the disputed conduct, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove, again by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer’s stated justification for its action “was not its true reason but was in fact merely a pretext” to disguise a discriminatory practice. 1993Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 2746-2747 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (describing shift in burden of proof under corresponding federal statute). 17 Finally, if the employer has articulated some legitimate, non-diserimina-tory reason for the disputed conduct, the burden shifts back to the employee to prove, again by a preponderance of the evidence, that the employer’s stated justification for its action “was not its true reason but was in fact merely a pretext” to disguise a discriminatory practice. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney
green
2 sentences1985Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 ; Board of Trustees v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978) (per curiam); Fumco, 438 U.S. at 577-78 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949-50 ; McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 . 1985Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 ; Board of Trustees v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978) (per curiam); Fumco, 438 U.S. at 577-78 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949-50 ; McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters
green
1 sentence1985Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 ; Board of Trustees v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978) (per curiam); Fumco, 438 U.S. at 577-78 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949-50 ; McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences1985Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 ; Board of Trustees v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978) (per curiam); Fumco, 438 U.S. at 577-78 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949-50 ; McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 . 1985Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. at 1094 ; Board of Trustees v. Sweeney, 439 U.S. 24 , 99 S.Ct. 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d 216 (1978) (per curiam); Fumco, 438 U.S. at 577-78 , 98 S.Ct. at 2949-50 ; McDonnell, 411 U.S. at 802 , 93 S.Ct. at 1824 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.