Skip to main content
· 3/29/1990

Quincy NORRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

Citations

  • 900 F.2d 1326
  • 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 4519
  • 53 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 39,902
  • 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 897
  • 1990 WL 34264

How courts have described this case

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

  • information not known at time employment decision is made is “entirely irrelevant” to Title VII claim
  • \Without specific findings ... we cannot meaningfully review the district court's conclusion that the [Secretary's] asserted rationale was not pretextual.\
  • “. . . the fact that a defendant’s rationale has shifted over time would seem likely to generate serious adverse inferences as to the pretextual nature of its explanations”
  • appellate court remands where district court's findings of fact are unclear
  • appellate court remands where district court’s findings of fact are unclear

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Poole, Boochever, Wiggins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.