Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Mgt. v. West
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided December 6, 2005No. 49S02-0501-CV-22Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBoehm, J.
For the reasons the majority gives, I agree that the State Personnel Act does not authorize SEAC to require IDEM to create positions that do not currently exist. I do not agree with the majority's conclusions as to a prima facie case of age discrimination. First, I believe the majority adopts an incorrect view of the law applicable to these facts. The majority adopts the federal burden-shifting approach to Title VII discrimination actions as instructive for Indiana's State Personnel Act. I agree that the federal approach enunciated in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, All U.S. 792, 98 S.Ct.…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- William Radue v. Kimberly-Clark CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2000
- Barnes v. GenCorp Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- Branson v. Price River Coal Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1988
- Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., Defendant-Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Jorge VEGA and Eusebio Leon, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. KODAK CARIBBEAN, LTD., Defendant, AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.