Makky v. Chertoff

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that Desert Palace held that a plaintiff need not present direct evidence in a mixed-motive Title VII discrimination case
• stating that Desert Palace held that a plaintiff need not present direct evidence in a mixed-motive Title VII discrimination case
• concluding it would be “impermissible” to “review the merits of [the plaintiff’s] security clearance access”
• reviewing plaintiffs Title VII claim but stating that the court was powerless to “question the motivation behind the decision” to deny plaintiff a clearance
• requiring plaintiff to establish that the adverse action “occurred under circumstances that could give rise to an inference of intentional discrimination” (citations omitted)
• finding that the plaintiff must establish “(1) that s/he is a member of a protected class; (2) s/he was qualified for the position s/he sought to . . . retain; (3) s/he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).