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 originSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec2000e-2; Unicode character offsets [349:395] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7b026a9ac957c5491602d868578271db8730b4c98650f1a4007b2e7430194c8b.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| majority-plaintiff-background-circumstances/race-conscious-policy-applied-to-everyone | 1 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-origin | National origin or ancestry | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| race | Racial group membership (minority or reverse-discrimination majority) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| race/african-american | 1 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-employee | 1 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-plaintiffs | 1 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-institution | 1 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 | |
| religion | Religious belief, observance, or Sabbath practice | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| religion/sabbath-observer-converted-during-employment | 1 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 | |
| sex | Sex, pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical condition (including abortion) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| sex-pregnancy-related-condition/abortion | 1 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-applicant | 1 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-classification | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 — satisfied | |
| sex/unspecified-theory | 1 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 variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No 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
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | not 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.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.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.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.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.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. |
| /f-supp-2d/832/0539-01 — United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania · 2011 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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.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. |
| /f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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 43ff772c2e3fbfe3210fd8995743b1d10c89d6d34fc9ed5d5ad773f37cb94da8.4. 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.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.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. |
| /f-supp/962/1447-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama · 1997 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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.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.(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.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. |
| /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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. |
| /f3d/41/1073-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1994 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(2) The trait is age, which is not a 2000e-2 trait. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/527/0358-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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.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.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.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.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.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. |
| /f3d/858/1307-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2017 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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.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. |
| /us/509/0502-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 1993 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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.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. |
| /us/539/0090-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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. |
| /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 | Protected trait: race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy/abortion), or national origin | satisfied 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. |
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.