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.
5 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrockgreen2 sentences2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. 2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. | 2 | 2 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2019The court relied on the -5- 7405 U.S. Supreme Court’s three-part McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green test.1 We have stated that, absent “direct evidence”2 of discriminatory intent, the three-part test should be used to analyze discrimination claims.3 Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the complainant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination: membership in a protected class, application to a position for which the 1 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 2 “[T]he term ‘direct evidence’ refers to the quantum of proof; it is not used as an antonym for ‘circumstantial evidence. 2019The court relied on the -5- 7405 U.S. Supreme Court’s three-part McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green test.1 We have stated that, absent “direct evidence”2 of discriminatory intent, the three-part test should be used to analyze discrimination claims.3 Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the complainant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination: membership in a protected class, application to a position for which the 1 411 U.S. 792 (1973). 2 “[T]he term ‘direct evidence’ refers to the quantum of proof; it is not used as an antonym for ‘circumstantial evidence. | 1 | 3 |
Peterson v. State, Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2019Res. , 236 P.3d 355 , 364 (Alaska 2010) ("Because it is 'usually impossible' for an employee to prove that the actions of an employer were motivated by discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part pretext analysis ... for claims of employment discrimination where there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, known as the McDonnell Douglas test."). 2019Res. , 236 P.3d 355 , 364 (Alaska 2010) ("Because it is 'usually impossible' for an employee to prove that the actions of an employer were motivated by discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part pretext analysis ... for claims of employment discrimination where there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, known as the McDonnell Douglas test."). | 1 | 2 |
Haroldsen v. Omni Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2004See also Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918-19 (Alaska 1999); State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365, 1374-75 (Alaska 1995); Haroldsen v. Omni Enters., 901 P.2d 426, 430 (Alaska 1995). 2004See also Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918-19 (Alaska 1999); State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365, 1374-75 (Alaska 1995); Haroldsen v. Omni Enters., 901 P.2d 426, 430 (Alaska 1995). | 1 | 2 |
Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc.green2 sentences2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. 2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc.green2 sentences2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. 2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Anchorage School Districtgreen2 sentences2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. 2019Dist., 240 P.3d 834, 840 (Alaska 2010) (emphasis in original) (first quoting Kinzel v. Discovery Drilling, Inc., 93 P.3d 427, 434 (Alaska 2004); then quoting Mahan v. Arctic Catering, Inc., 133 P.3d 655, 662 (Alaska 2006)). 3 See VECO, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918 (Alaska 1999) (“In determining whether an employer has violated [Alaska’s Human Rights Act] when there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, we have adopted the three-part framework used in Title VII cases.”); Peterson v. State, Dep’t of Nat. | 1 | 1 |
State, Department of Fish & Game, Sport Fish Division v. Meyergreen2 sentences2004See also Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918-19 (Alaska 1999); State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365, 1374-75 (Alaska 1995); Haroldsen v. Omni Enters., 901 P.2d 426, 430 (Alaska 1995). 2004See also Veco, Inc. v. Rosebrock, 970 P.2d 906, 918-19 (Alaska 1999); State, Dep't of Fish & Game v. Meyer, 906 P.2d 1365, 1374-75 (Alaska 1995); Haroldsen v. Omni Enters., 901 P.2d 426, 430 (Alaska 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Era Aviation, Inc. v. Lindforsgreen2 sentences2004Era Aviation, Inc., v. Lindfors, 17 P.3d 40, 44 (Alaska 2000). 2004Era Aviation, Inc., v. Lindfors, 17 P.3d 40, 44 (Alaska 2000). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Woodgreen2 sentences2004Alaska adopted the McDonnell Douglas test in Brown v. Wood, 575 P.2d 760, 770 (Alaska 1978). 2004Alaska adopted the McDonnell Douglas test in Brown v. Wood, 575 P.2d 760, 770 (Alaska 1978). | 1 | 1 |
Joan A. HAGANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Cecil ANDRUS, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences1983See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13, 36 L.Ed.2d at 677 n. 13; see also Hagans v. Andrus, 651 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859 , 102 S.Ct. 313 , 70 L.Ed.2d 157 (1981). 1983See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13, 36 L.Ed.2d at 677 n. 13; see also Hagans v. Andrus, 651 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859 , 102 S.Ct. 313 , 70 L.Ed.2d 157 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Hagans v. Wattgreen2 sentences1983See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13, 36 L.Ed.2d at 677 n. 13; see also Hagans v. Andrus, 651 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859 , 102 S.Ct. 313 , 70 L.Ed.2d 157 (1981). 1983See McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. at 1824 n. 13, 36 L.Ed.2d at 677 n. 13; see also Hagans v. Andrus, 651 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 859 , 102 S.Ct. 313 , 70 L.Ed.2d 157 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
red
2 sentences2019If there is "direct evidence" of discriminatory intent in a mixed motive case, we apply the framework from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), superseded by statute , Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. 2019If there is "direct evidence" of discriminatory intent in a mixed motive case, we apply the framework from Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins , 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989), superseded by statute , Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Board of Trustees of Keene State College v. Sweeney
green
2 sentences1983The Supreme Court said that it did not mean “prove”; rather, that “we think that there is a significant distinction between merely ‘articulating] some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’ and ‘proving] the absence of discriminatory motive.’ By reaffirming and emphasizing the McDonnell Douglas analysis in Furnco ... we made it clear that the former will suffice to meet the employee’s prima facie case of discrimination.” Id. at 25 , 99 S.Ct. at 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d at 219 . 1983The Supreme Court said that it did not mean “prove”; rather, that “we think that there is a significant distinction between merely ‘articulating] some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason’ and ‘proving] the absence of discriminatory motive.’ By reaffirming and emphasizing the McDonnell Douglas analysis in Furnco ... we made it clear that the former will suffice to meet the employee’s prima facie case of discrimination.” Id. at 25 , 99 S.Ct. at 295 , 58 L.Ed.2d at 219 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.