DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

§ 290

Citation
§ 290
Parent Document
Francis v. Kings Park Manor, Inc., 992 F.3d 67 (2021)
Effective Date
2021-03-25
Original Source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4867798/francis-v-kings-park-manor-inc/ ↗

Other Sections in This Document (993)

Full Text

1,045 chars 
17  See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). We have widely
applied the McDonnell Douglas framework to the various antidiscrimination laws.
See, e.g., Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook, Inc., 939 F.3d 465, 468 (2d Cir. 2019) (applying
McDonnell Douglas framework to disability discrimination claim); Bucalo v. Shelter
Island Union Free Sch. Dist., 691 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 2012) (age discrimination
claim); Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 213 (2d Cir. 2008) (FHA disparate treatment
claim).
       18  Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 311 (2d Cir. 2015) (“[T]he
complaint [in a McDonnell Douglas case] . . . must be viewed in light of the plaintiff's
minimal burden to show discriminatory intent [at the initial stage of the McDonnell
Douglas analysis] . . . . The facts alleged must give plausible support to the reduced
[initial evidentiary] requirements that arise under McDonnell Douglas . . . .”)
       19 Id. (defining pleading standards for Title VII claims alleging
discrimination on the basis of sex and race).