Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin

OR · 42usc2000e-2:protected-class

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

Exact element source

race, color, religion, sex, or national origin
Source: docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [349:395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.

All variants

Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants
VariantDescriptionMerits instance blocksDistinct casesExample cases (up to 3 per group)
majority-plaintiff-background-circumstances/race-conscious-policy-applied-to-everyone1
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0
1/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not
national-originNational origin or ancestry0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
0No annotation uses in this snapshot
raceRacial group membership (minority or reverse-discrimination majority)0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
0No annotation uses in this snapshot
race/african-american1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 — satisfied
race/black-employee1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 — satisfied
race/white-and-hispanic-majority-plaintiffs1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — satisfied
race/white-employee-of-predominantly-black-institution1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — satisfied
religionReligious belief, observance, or Sabbath practice0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
0No annotation uses in this snapshot
religion/sabbath-observer-converted-during-employment1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 — satisfied
sexSex, pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition (including abortion)0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
0No annotation uses in this snapshot
sex-pregnancy-related-condition/abortion1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 — satisfied
sex/female-police-applicant1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 — satisfied
sex/only-woman-in-job-classification1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — satisfied
sex/unspecified-theory1
Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0
1/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 — satisfied
Unspecified variantNo variant assigned in the database.0
Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1
0No counted merits examples

Excluded context examples: /f3d/41/1073-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994 — comparator/merits

How courts decided this element

Annotation blocks, including explicitly excluded context
CaseElementHolding and scopeVariantExact source quotations
/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originnot
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a)

D.C. Circuit "background circumstances" gloss turns class membership into an evidentiary showing for white plaintiffs; it fails here for the same reason because-of fails (no difference in treatment by race). The one Black plaintiff is treated as an associational claimant (fn.).
majority-plaintiff-background-circumstances/race-conscious-policy-applied-to-everyone
Plaintiffs James E. Ginger, Paul E. Hustlar, Michael J. Lewis, Bernard D. Richardson, Mark W. Wood, Robert M. Wigton, and Roy Potter are white.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [798:941] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Plaintiffs allege that the reorganization occurred because of a perception that Squad 2 was “too white” and because of a concern about how the media would react to a mostly white squad whose victims were mostly black.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [2040:2257] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The analysis also revealed that Squad 2, which was involved in the majority of the bites, had a racial makeup that is predominantly white male — 6 out of 7 officers and the sergeant are white males.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [3029:3227] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

In reverse discrimination cases, a plaintiff must do more than simply show that he is white in order to make out the first prong of a prima facie case of discrimination.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [7138:7307] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

To demonstrate background circumstances, a plaintiff must provide evidence from one of the following categories: (1) evidence indicating that the employer “ ‘has some reason or inclination to discriminate invidiously against whites’ ”; or (2) evidence indicating that “ ‘there is something “fishy” about the facts of the case at hand that raises an inference of discrimination.’ ”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [7802:8182] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 1 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

The fact that concern about race relations plays into decision making at a macro level when developing policies on how to reorganize a police unit is not sufficient to support the suspicion that the Metropolitan Police Department is the unusual employer that discriminates against the majority.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [10178:10472] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1)

race/african-american
On July 24, 2007, Raymour and Flanigan, a furniture company, hired Glenn, an African-American male, as a Facility Technician in its Frazer, Pennsylvania service center (“Frazer Service Center”).
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [685:879] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

For purposes of the summary judgment motion, Glenn has satisfied the first three steps of his prima facie case — he is a member of a protected class, is qualified for his Customer Delivery Inspector position, and was discharged from that position by Raymours.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_832.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/832/0539-01; Unicode character offsets [20738:20997] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ad682cd3ab80d3bbd67d0ed1b42af8b4626a1b1756981872f0895f0ffadff61f.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: law; claim: (a)

race/white-employee-of-predominantly-black-institution
3. Plaintiff Albert Turner is a white male who is currently a resident of Houston, Texas. Turner was employed on the faculty of BSC from August 20, 1973, until May 1, 1981.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [1848:2020] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

4. Plaintiff Robert Goetzman is a white male who is currently a resident of St. Louis, Missouri. Goetzman was employed on the faculty of BSC from August 30, 1973, until May 1, 1981.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [2021:2202] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

BSC is a predominantly black private school located in Concord, North Carolina, and is owned by the United Presbyterian Church, U.S.A.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [1315:1449] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Analyzing the proof in the subject case according to this scheme, plaintiffs fall within a protected racial class.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_604.jsonl#/f-supp/604/1450-01; Unicode character offsets [19565:19679] (end exclusive); SHA-256 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(c)(3),(m); 2000e(j); 2000e-3(a)

religion/sabbath-observer-converted-during-employment
Breech has been a praetieing member of the Worldwide Church of God since the Fall of 1990; he maintains that he did not attend work on these four occasions because it was contrary to his religious beliefs.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [1210:1415] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

One tenant of Breech’s faith is that he cannot work from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [1416:1508] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

(1) that he is a member of and/or practices a particular religion, (2) that he was qualified for the job from which he was discharged, (3) that he was discharged, and (4) that his former position was filled by a person of a different religion or a person of no religion at all.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [25400:25677] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Breech has satisfied the first three elements of a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [31799:31895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (a)(2); party: plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list; subject: party=plaintiff applicant for police officer, 5 feet tall, first on the women-only list

sex/female-police-applicant
In February, 1974, the city abandoned these separate job categories, and thereafter both men and women competed for positions as police officers. Women applicants were also required to meet the 5 feet 6 inches height requirement.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_706.jsonl#/f2d/706/0001-01; Unicode character offsets [35283:35512] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a04ddf6b77ebbe1be45da604edab3afaa55f3443924aa30b820fa57e210b4ed1.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f3d/41/1073-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originnot_reached
Excluded from merits counts
comparator / merits

claim: (a)(2)

The trait is age, which is not a 2000e-2 trait.
Unspecified variantNo source quotation recorded for this block.
/f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: law; claim: (a); 2000e(k)

First-impression statutory construction of 2000e(k): "because of sex" reaches discharge for having an abortion. The class element also carries an employer-knowledge requirement in pregnancy cases (conceded here).
sex-pregnancy-related-condition/abortion
On Wednesday, August 9th, Doe learned that her baby had severe deformities and her physician recommended that her pregnancy be terminated.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [2735:2873] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Then, he spoke with Kohl and told him that the pregnancy would be terminated the following day.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [3237:3332] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Instead, she argues that she was discharged because she underwent a surgical abortion.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [4676:4762] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Clearly, the plain language of the statute, together with the legislative history and the EEOC guidelines, support a conclusion that an employer may not discriminate against a woman employee because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [8078:8325] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Therefore, in a case alleging pregnancy discrimination, to raise an inference of any unlawful discharge a plaintiff must adduce evidence that she was pregnant, and, that the employer knew it.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [12960:13151] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We now hold that the term “related medical conditions” includes an abortion.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [8326:8402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: assumed; claim: (a)(1); 2000e-3(a)

The opinion never says how the demotion is claimed to be sex-based (the trigger was a romantic relationship with a former private supervisee); the whole prima facie case is assumed.
sex/unspecified-theory
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s ... sex.”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [16142:16285] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.

Evidence kind: rule; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

We assume without deciding that Dr. Hiatt could make a prima facie McDonnell Douglas showing of sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and Title IX.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [20393:20553] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); party: plaintiff Melvin Hicks, shift commander (respondent); subject: party=plaintiff Melvin Hicks, shift commander (respondent)

race/black-employee
Respondent Melvin Hicks, a black man, was hired as a correctional officer at St. Mary’s in August 1978 and was promoted to shift commander, one of six supervisory positions, in February 1980.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [553:744] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Petitioners do not challenge the District Court’s finding that respondent satisfied the minimal requirements of such a prima facie case (set out in McDonnell Douglas, supra, at 802) by proving (1) that he is black, (2) that he was qualified for the position of shift commander, (3) that he was demoted from that position and ultimately discharged, and (4) that the position remained open and was ultimately filled by a white man.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_509.jsonl#/us/509/0502-01; Unicode character offsets [3132:3561] (end exclusive); SHA-256 f6ba1643673c63e64401ed4ea3db1f6647ecf24cb97fdf31426b87eb7aa43ab3.

Evidence kind: held; polarity: not recorded; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(m); party: plaintiff Catharina Costa, warehouse worker (respondent); subject: party=plaintiff Catharina Costa, warehouse worker (respondent)

sex/only-woman-in-job-classification
Respondent was the only woman in this job and in her local Teamsters bargaining unit.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_539.jsonl#/us/539/0090-01; Unicode character offsets [5251:5336] (end exclusive); SHA-256 9a7e4d9846d799473649658702ae2649d2f44f3694664d7d3e7eb291f31597df.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

/us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national originsatisfied
Counted merits instance
applied / merits

basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(k),(l),(h),(j); party: plaintiff 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter who passed the examinations (petitioners); subject: party=plaintiff 17 white firefighters and 1 Hispanic firefighter who passed the examinations (petitioners)

race/white-and-hispanic-majority-plaintiffs
Certain white and Hispanic firefighters who likely would have been promoted based on their good test performance sued the City and some of its officials.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl#/us/557/0557-01; Unicode character offsets [1742:1895] (end exclusive); SHA-256 260918fc09a3789f6fc5f393d32a8891037013cb975d044af335bcd3f84ab557.

Evidence kind: fact; polarity: supports; absent flag: 0; quoted-rule flag: 0 (1 = tagged; 0 = not tagged)

Court interpretations

interpretation

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s ... sex.”

/f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual “because of such individual’s ... sex.”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_858.jsonl#/f3d/858/1307-01; Unicode character offsets [16142:16285] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ea359a0c941889caa6fcc8ffe43892de16d825e7dd18ad2136f26ed9b3f89b2f.

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

interpretation

Clearly, the plain language of the statute, together with the legislative history and the EEOC guidelines, support a conclusion that an employer may not discriminate against a woman employee because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.

/f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008

Clearly, the plain language of the statute, together with the legislative history and the EEOC guidelines, support a conclusion that an employer may not discriminate against a woman employee because she has exercised her right to have an abortion.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [8078:8325] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

interpretation

Therefore, in a case alleging pregnancy discrimination, to raise an inference of any unlawful discharge a plaintiff must adduce evidence that she was pregnant, and, that the employer knew it.

/f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008

Therefore, in a case alleging pregnancy discrimination, to raise an inference of any unlawful discharge a plaintiff must adduce evidence that she was pregnant, and, that the employer knew it.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_527.jsonl#/f3d/527/0358-01; Unicode character offsets [12960:13151] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7403bc10d85e1df0ad37ec6894b9137591d0949906c59e93cb1365fcf01b44bb.

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

interpretation

In reverse discrimination cases, a plaintiff must do more than simply show that he is white in order to make out the first prong of a prima facie case of discrimination.

/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007

In reverse discrimination cases, a plaintiff must do more than simply show that he is white in order to make out the first prong of a prima facie case of discrimination.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [7138:7307] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

interpretation

To demonstrate background circumstances, a plaintiff must provide evidence from one of the following categories: (1) evidence indicating that the employer “ ‘has some reason or inclination to discriminate invidiously against whites’ ”; or (2) evidence indicating that “ ‘there is something “fishy” about the facts of the case at hand that raises an inference of discrimination.’ ”

/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007

To demonstrate background circumstances, a plaintiff must provide evidence from one of the following categories: (1) evidence indicating that the employer “ ‘has some reason or inclination to discriminate invidiously against whites’ ”; or (2) evidence indicating that “ ‘there is something “fishy” about the facts of the case at hand that raises an inference of discrimination.’ ”
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_2d_477.jsonl#/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01; Unicode character offsets [7802:8182] (end exclusive); SHA-256 98f9fdfbd29e7eaa93261d6440fe0ed8e4821a6a9a6334e41f0be98ebbbe49e1.

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

interpretation

(1) that he is a member of and/or practices a particular religion, (2) that he was qualified for the job from which he was discharged, (3) that he was discharged, and (4) that his former position was filled by a person of a different religion or a person of no religion at all.

/f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997

(1) that he is a member of and/or practices a particular religion, (2) that he was qualified for the job from which he was discharged, (3) that he was discharged, and (4) that his former position was filled by a person of a different religion or a person of no religion at all.
Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_962.jsonl#/f-supp/962/1447-01; Unicode character offsets [25400:25677] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c9d3cf4a8e3b5373cb13844fbe0d43429324dce0876d20c5fdba3f4d459c1acf.

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.