Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

McDonnell Douglas test

Read a random definition: law of nature

A quick definition of McDonnell Douglas test:

The McDonnell Douglas test is a way to figure out if someone was discriminated against at work. First, the person who thinks they were discriminated against has to show some evidence that they belong to a group that is protected from discrimination and that something bad happened to them at work. Then, the employer has to explain why they did what they did, and it can't be because of discrimination. If the employer gives a good reason, the person who thinks they were discriminated against has to prove that the employer is lying and that discrimination really was the reason for what happened. This test comes from a court case called McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green.

A more thorough explanation:

The McDonnell Douglas test is a principle used in employment law to determine if discrimination has occurred in the workplace. It requires the plaintiff to provide evidence of discrimination, and the defendant to provide evidence that the employment action was taken for non-discriminatory reasons.

Here's how the McDonnell Douglas test works:

  • The plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that they are a member of a protected group and have suffered an adverse employment action.
  • If the plaintiff satisfies this burden, the defendant must then provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the employment action.
  • If the defendant satisfies this burden, the plaintiff must then prove that the defendant's stated reason is just a pretext for discrimination and that discrimination was the real reason for the employment action.

For example, let's say a woman believes she was not hired for a job because of her gender. She would need to provide evidence that she is a woman and that she was not hired for the job. If she can do this, the employer would need to provide a legitimate reason for not hiring her, such as not having the necessary qualifications. If the employer can provide a legitimate reason, the woman would need to prove that the reason given was just an excuse for discrimination.

McClanahan presumption | MCF

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
10:38
Very happy with LR other than having to guess on a couple questions cuz of time
10:42
i have a question about my personal statement. in my activism for the hospitality workers' union, i organized and spoke up in favor of stronger regulations on airbnb because the unregulated spread of airbnb throughout LA was inflating housing costs for workers and threatening their job security. do you think it's too divisive to mention regulating airbnb? idk
Nostradumbass
10:44
I wrote mine about how all activists should be consolidated into a large smelting pot and refined down to a viscous goo
Nostradumbass
10:45
Expecting a lot of rejections though
11:07
I'm sure you'll get a full ride to a few schools :P
11:11
The impression I get is most schools try not to judge based on the political implications of what you write about. They probably care more that you saw a problem and tried to fix it. That seems like a great thing to write a PS about @chowie
11:18
Besides, if a school didn’t let you in for trying to fix a problem you saw in your community, that doesn’t say great things about your school’s culture (assuming the thing you did showed good common sense judgment ofc)
11:19
That school’s* culture
11:23
Thanks Howl you're right :D I def talked about solving problems in my PS
12:03
@HowlEngineer: what's your dream school
MildChiller
12:08
"Have you applied for admission to [school] in a prior year" I applied in Oct. of the 23-24 cycle, should I put 23 or 24 as the year I applied?
MildChiller
12:09
Bcuz 2023 is when I technically applied but I applied for admissions in 2024
12:14
2024 cuz that's when you would've been admitted
I agree with Howl
12:19
Gecko what's ur dream school
Hard to say. I'm pretty firmly committed to the philly area so probably temple or villanova
Also relatively debt averse so I'd have to get a good scholarship from BC or Fordham to want to go but that's not very likely for me
Any advice? lol
[] baddestbunny
12:25
what’s a good scholarship for you? what would make BC or Fordham worth it?
12:25
Hmmmm let me think
[] baddestbunny
12:25
fordham’s max aid they give is 45k per year
Bunny I can possibly get a 75%+ scholarship from villanova or temple, and I'd be moving back in with my parents if I went there so I'd have near-zero COL. It'd be really hard to beat that
I would prefer BC over Fordham just because I like boston more, but I'm expecting a WL there tbh
I would maybe consider BC with $ but I don't know how to decide if a better biglaw chance is worth the COL + higher tuition
12:50
How do I know if my status checkers are properly linked
12:59
@ChowieBean: right now, Michigan, but there are several that come close. How about you?
13:05
@Law01: I haven't gotten the status checkers to work at all. When I sent an email to the LSData folks the other week, they said they were working on fixing them
13:10
but I think "Last Checked" would change from "Never" to something else
13:30
@HowlEngineer: I'll get more specific once I get my LSAT score, but NYU, Berk, GTown, UCLA
13:30
Anywhere that's top for PI
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.