8 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 2007–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
Paul Ossmann v. Meredith Corporationgreen2 sentences2024Appellant has also failed to provide a convincing mosaic of circumstances to prove substantive discrimination; her evidence is based upon speculation, and the mere fact that an employee outside her protected class replaced her “is not enough to carry the day on the 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). substantive question of discrimination.” Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., 82 F.4th 1007, 1019 (11th Cir. 2023). 2024Appellant has also failed to provide a convincing mosaic of circumstances to prove substantive discrimination; her evidence is based upon speculation, and the mere fact that an employee outside her protected class replaced her “is not enough to carry the day on the 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). substantive question of discrimination.” Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., 82 F.4th 1007, 1019 (11th Cir. 2023). | 1 | 1 |
Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgiagreen2 sentences2024See Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., 918 F.3d 1213 , 1220–21 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that to meet the McDonnell Douglas test for a prima facie case of employment discrimination, comparators must be substantially similar in material respects). 2024See Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., 918 F.3d 1213 , 1220–21 (11th Cir. 2019) (holding that to meet the McDonnell Douglas test for a prima facie case of employment discrimination, comparators must be substantially similar in material respects). | 1 | 1 |
Tillis v. Sheriff of Indian River Countygreen2 sentences2018See Tillis v. Sheriff of Indian River Cty., 603 F. App’x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2015). 2018See Tillis v. Sheriff of Indian River Cty., 603 F. App’x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2015). | 1 | 1 |
Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Services, LLCgreen2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
Haire v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University Agricultural & Mechanical Collegegreen2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Lockheed Martin Corp.green2 sentences2014For example, in Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir.2011), the Eleventh Circuit, after holding that the plaintiff had not identified a sufficient comparator to satisfy the fourth prong of McDonnell Douglas, stated: However, establishing the elements of the McDonnell Douglas framework is not, and never was intended to be, the sine qua non for a plaintiff to survive a summary judgment motion in an employment discrimination case. 2014For example, in Smith v. Lockheed-Martin Corp., 644 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir.2011), the Eleventh Circuit, after holding that the plaintiff had not identified a sufficient comparator to satisfy the fourth prong of McDonnell Douglas, stated: However, establishing the elements of the McDonnell Douglas framework is not, and never was intended to be, the sine qua non for a plaintiff to survive a summary judgment motion in an employment discrimination case. | 1 | 1 |
Andrea Weathers v. University of North Carolinagreen2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
William Schechner v. Kpix-Tvgreen2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc.green2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
Tabor v. Hilti, Inc.green2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
Nancy G. Holmes v. Trinity Healthgreen2 sentences2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII 2014Coll., 719 F.3d 356, 363-64 (5th Cir.2013); Rachells v. Cingular Wireless Employee Servs., LLC, 732 F.3d 652, 661 (6th Cir.2013); Holmes v. Trinity Health, 729 F.3d 817, 821 (8th Cir.2013); Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., 703 F.3d 1206, 1216 (10th Cir.2013); Cruz v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., PR, Inc., 699 F.3d 563, 571 (1st Cir.2012); Schechner v. KPIX-TV, 686 F.3d 1018, 1023 (9th Cir.2012); and Weathers v. Univ. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 447 Fed.Appx. 508, 510 (4th Cir.2011) (all utilizing some form of the traditional McDonnell Douglas test as the only circumstantial method of proof in a Title VII | 1 | 1 |
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.green2 sentences2012See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 590 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1376 (M.D.Fla.2008). 2012See U.S. E.E.O.C. v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 590 F.Supp.2d 1371, 1376 (M.D.Fla.2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
green
2 sentences2024Appellant has also failed to provide a convincing mosaic of circumstances to prove substantive discrimination; her evidence is based upon speculation, and the mere fact that an employee outside her protected class replaced her “is not enough to carry the day on the 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). substantive question of discrimination.” Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., 82 F.4th 1007, 1019 (11th Cir. 2023). 2024Appellant has also failed to provide a convincing mosaic of circumstances to prove substantive discrimination; her evidence is based upon speculation, and the mere fact that an employee outside her protected class replaced her “is not enough to carry the day on the 1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). substantive question of discrimination.” Ossmann v. Meredith Corp., 82 F.4th 1007, 1019 (11th Cir. 2023). | 4 | 2007–2024 |
Valenzuela v. Globeground North America, LLC
green
2 sentences2011Valenzuela, 18 So.3d at 22 . 2011Valenzuela, 18 So.3d at 22 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Mary's Honor Center, [ 509 U.S. at 510 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ], and the sole remaining issue [is] `discrimination vel non, ' [ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. ] Aikens, [ 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)]." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . 2008Mary's Honor Center, [ 509 U.S. at 510 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ], and the sole remaining issue [is] `discrimination vel non, ' [ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. ] Aikens, [ 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)]." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
green
2 sentences2008Mary's Honor Center, [ 509 U.S. at 510 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ], and the sole remaining issue [is] `discrimination vel non, ' [ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. ] Aikens, [ 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)]." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . 2008Mary's Honor Center, [ 509 U.S. at 510 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ], and the sole remaining issue [is] `discrimination vel non, ' [ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. ] Aikens, [ 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)]." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
green
2 sentences2008In O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 , 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996), the supreme court considered whether the prima facie case required that the younger person be outside of the protected class, i.e., under forty years of age. 2008In O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 , 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996), the supreme court considered whether the prima facie case required that the younger person be outside of the protected class, i.e., under forty years of age. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens
green
2 sentences2008Mary's Honor Center, [ 509 U.S. at 510 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ], and the sole remaining issue [is] `discrimination vel non, ' [ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. ] Aikens, [ 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)]." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . 2008Mary's Honor Center, [ 509 U.S. at 510 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 ], and the sole remaining issue [is] `discrimination vel non, ' [ United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. ] Aikens, [ 460 U.S. 711, 714 , 103 S.Ct. 1478 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983)]." Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142-43 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
green
2 sentences2008"This obligation arises both from the necessity of rebutting the inference of discrimination arising from the prima facie case and from the requirement that the plaintiff be afforded `a full and fair opportunity' to demonstrate pretext." Id. *642 Once the defendant presents such evidence, "`the McDonnell Douglas framework-with its presumptions and burdens'-disappear[s], St. 2008"This obligation arises both from the necessity of rebutting the inference of discrimination arising from the prima facie case and from the requirement that the plaintiff be afforded `a full and fair opportunity' to demonstrate pretext." Id. *642 Once the defendant presents such evidence, "`the McDonnell Douglas framework-with its presumptions and burdens'-disappear[s], St. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.