Buchholz V. Victor Printing
From Conservapedia In Buchholz v. Victor Printing, a federal district court denied summary judgment under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination on a claim for age discrimination. The court held:
| “ | If a plaintiff is unable to make out a claim for age discrimination using direct evidence, he may instead rely on circumstantial evidence under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Sisler, 157 N.J. at 209-10, 723 A.2d 944; see also Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 691 (3d Cir. 2009) (finding that Gross decision which prohibits shifting the burden of persuasion to an ADEA defendant, does not forbid application of McDonnell Douglas methodology to age discrimination claims since only the burden of production, not the burden of persuasion, shifts to the employer).
Under the McDonnell Douglas three-step methodology, the employee must prove a prima facie case of discrimination, then the burden of production shifts to the employer to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its employment decision, then the burden then shifts back to the employee to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate non-discriminatory reason articulated by the employer was not the true reason for the employment decision, but was merely a pretext for discrimination. Sisler, 157 N.J. at 210, 723 A.2d at 955. |
” |
Buchholz v. Victor Printing, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 180, 187 (D.N.J. 2012).
Categories: [New Jersey Law Against Discrimination]
↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 02/14/2023 03:21:23 | 7 views
☰ Source: https://www.conservapedia.com/Buchholz_v._Victor_Printing | License: CC BY-SA 3.0
ZWI signed:
KSF