Estades-Negroni v. Associates Corp. NA

First Circuit

Estades-Negroni v. Associates Corp. NA

377 F.3d 58

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedDecember 2, 2003

Docket02-1852

StatusPublished

This text of 377 F.3d 58 (Estades-Negroni v. Associates Corp. NA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estades-Negroni v. Associates Corp. NA, 377 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 02-1852

NYDIA ESTADES-NEGRONI, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THE ASSOCIATES CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL SERVICES, ASSOCIATES FIRST CAPITAL CORPORATION, ASSOCIATES CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 1, 2003 is amended as follows:

On p. 8, ll. 16-22 - Replace "'To survive summary judgment, the employee must first either present direct evidence of discrimination or make out a prima facie case of discrimination" under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm. Bramble v. American Postal Workers Union, Providence Local, 135 F.3d 21, 25 (1st Cir. 1998); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973).'" with "In Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003), decided after the district court order in this case, the Supreme Court held that "direct evidence" is not required to prove employment discrimination in a mixed- motive case. Accordingly, we must consider both "direct evidence," see Vesprini v. Shaw Contract Flooring Servs., 315 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that "the term 'direct evidence' normally contemplates only those statements by a decisionmaker that directly reflect the alleged animus and bear squarely on the contested employment decision") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and circumstantial evidence."

On p. 8, l. 23 - p. 9, l. 4 - Delete from "In the discrimination context" to and including "quotation marks and citations omitted)."

On p. 9, l. 7 - Replace the word "direct" with "sufficient". On p. 10, l. 14 - Insert the words "mixed-motive" between "a" and "case".

On p. 10, l. 14 - Delete the words "based on direct evidence".

On p. 10, l. 15 - Delete the word "direct".

On p. 11, l. 4 - Replace the word "judgments" with "judgment".

On p. 11, l. 5 - Replace "See, e.g.," with "Cf.".

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 02-1852

NYDIA ESTADES-NEGRONI, Plaintiff, Appellant,

v.

THE ASSOCIATES CORPORATION OF NORTH AMERICA, ASSOCIATES FINANCIAL SERVICES, ASSOCIATES FIRST CAPITAL CORPORATION, ASSOCIATES CORPORATION OF PUERTO RICO, INC., Defendants, Appellees.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on October 1, 2003 is amended as follows:

On p. 8, ll. 16-22 - Replace "'To survive summary judgment, the employee must first either present direct evidence of discrimination or make out a prima facie case of discrimination" under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm. Bramble v. American Postal Workers Union, Providence Local, 135 F.3d 21, 25 (1st Cir. 1998); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973).'" with "In Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 123 S. Ct. 2148 (2003), decided after the district court order in this case, the Supreme Court held that "direct evidence" is not required to prove employment discrimination in a mixed- motive case. Accordingly, we must consider both "direct evidence," see Vesprini v. Shaw Contract Flooring Servs., 315 F.3d 37, 41 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting that "the term 'direct evidence' normally contemplates only those statements by a decisionmaker that directly reflect the alleged animus and bear squarely on the contested employment decision") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted), and circumstantial evidence."

On p. 8, l. 23 - p. 9, l. 4 - Delete from "In the discrimination context" to and including "quotation marks and citations omitted)."

On p. 9, l. 7 - Replace the word "direct" with "sufficient". On p. 10, l. 14 - Insert the words "mixed-motive" between "a" and "case".

On p. 10, l. 14 - Delete the words "based on direct evidence".

On p. 10, l. 15 - Delete the word "direct".

On p. 11, l. 4 - Replace the word "judgments" with "judgment".

On p. 11, l. 5 - Replace "See, e.g.," with "Cf.".

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 F.3d 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estades-negroni-v-associates-corp-na-ca1-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack