No. 21-6690

Joe Pyatt v. AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-12-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appellate-review burden-shifting civil-rights discrimination-framework disparate-treatment district-court due-process employment-discrimination judicial-precedent mcdonnell-douglas precedent title-vii
Key Terms:
EmploymentDiscrimina
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the district court, as well as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, can overrule the precedent of this court set in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED The ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals departs so far from the accepted ; and normal usual course of judicial proceedings that it now requires the supervisory power of this court to correct. This court has established a burden shifting framework to guide the lowers courts of how a litigant can prevail in a discrimination case based on disparate treatment. This court established this precedent in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973) which has been followed by the majority of all federal district and circuit courts. The Petitioner established a prima . facie case for discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework supported by evidence and was denied the right to a trial. The question presented is | ; 1. Whether the district court, as well as the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, | : can overrule the precedent of this court set in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). . 1

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-27
Reply of petitioner Joe Pyatt filed.
2022-01-19
Brief of respondent AECOM Technical Services, Inc. in opposition filed.
2021-12-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 20, 2022)

Attorneys

AECOM Technical Services, Inc.
Rene J. Gonzalez-LLorensShutts & Bowen LLP, Respondent
Joe Pyatt
Joe Pyatt — Petitioner