|
||||
|
Login
Month Archive
Recent Visitors
sandy - Tue 17 Aug 2010 07:51 AM EDT
aden.richards - Tue 17 Aug 2010 02:38 AM EDT
ericjones - Mon 16 Aug 2010 10:11 AM EDT
henery - Wed 28 Jul 2010 08:37 AM EDT
justin.will - Wed 28 Jul 2010 08:33 AM EDT
|
Friday, October 8
by
mknjlaw
on Fri 08 Oct 2004 10:20 PM EDT
Unlike Professor Trelawney the courts of this country and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission don�t believe that selecting officials can peer into a crystal ball to divine the future performance of candidates on a best-qualified list. Mainly for this reason (I assert), the courts and the Commission have created the �clearly-better qualified� doctrine. Under this doctrine, in the pretext stage of a disparate treatment case, the unsuccessful candidate must prove by a preponderance of the evidence not merely that she was better qualified than the selectee, but also clearly better qualified. So much better qualified in fact that �disparities in curricula vitae are so apparent, as virtually to jump off the page and slap us in the face." more »
|
|||