James Shafer v. Linda Faye Graysneck and John Rummel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that Title VII’s silence with respect to an evidentiary standard suggests that a conventional preponderance of the evidence standard applies
• holding that Title VII's silence with respect to an evidentiary standard suggests that a conventional preponderance of the evidence standard applies
• holding that Title VII plaintiffs may prove discrimination in mixed-motive cases by direct or circumstantial evidence
• holding that direct evidence is not required in order to prove discrimination in mixed-motive cases under Title VII
• holding that the statute does not require plaintiffs to put forth direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a “motivating factor” or “mixed motive” jury instruction
• holding that in Title VII cases, the mixed-motives theory of discrimination is available in cases with circumstantial evidence of discrimination

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).