What was the holding of the case?
The Supreme Court held that since the company came forward with no evidence of legitimate motives for the discriminatory conduct, the company did not meet its burden of proof. As a result, the Court stated that it was not necessary to decide the degree to which the challenged conduct might have affected employee rights. The Court did not have to consider whether the conduct was "inherently destructive" or "comparatively slight.".
You might also like to view...
A candidate's ability to understand unspoken "rules" of a situation is best represented through what?
A) The candidate's thoroughness in researching the organization B) The candidate's display of personal characteristics like warmth and professionalism C) The candidate's presentation of a professional image D) The candidate's ability to ask meaningful and thoughtful questions E) The candidate's ability to make small talk with strangers at the workplace
In reviewing the actions of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies, the courts
a. are usually reluctant to review questions of fact. b. rarely defer to the technical expertise of administrative agencies. c. often rule on the merits of policy determinations. d. never defer to an agency's interpretation of law.
A price quotation with a mathematical mistake in the adding of a number of figures will never render a contract unenforceable
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
A ____ is someone of questionable ethics.
A. red-hat hacker B. white-hat hacker C. gray-hat hacker D. script kiddie