Proof of job discrimination
Neal v. Meink
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Isaiah Neal asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s requirement that Title VII plaintiffs show specific and substantial evidence of pretext, and whether an appeals court may affirm a judgment on a ground the parties had no meaningful chance to address.
- Who it affects
- Neal did not receive Supreme Court review, and the Court made no ruling on the legal questions in his petition.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear his petition (denied review), so it did not decide either question.
The petition raised separate questions about proof of pretext in Title VII cases and whether parties had a fair chance to respond to the ground used to uphold a judgment.
Question presented
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit’s requirement that Title VII plaintiffs make a “specific and substantial” showing of pretext to survive summary judgment is in direct conflict with Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000), and with the First, Fifth, Seventh, and D.C. Circuits, which hold that no such pretext showing is required. 2. Whether, under Article III and the party-presentation principle recognized in United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. 371 (2020), a federal court of appeals may affirm a dispositive judgment on the basis that the district court raised sua sponte and that no party raised or had a meaningful opportunity to contest.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.