Reeves. 1.7 Pamela Reeves, formerly and also known as Pamela Roberts and P.E. Roberts, represents and warrants that she is currently the duly and legally appointed successor Trustee of the Reeves Trust and has full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Reeves Trust and its beneficiaries and to bind the Reeves Trust and its beneficiaries and their successors and assigns to all of the terms of this Agreement. 1.8 Pamela Reeves, formerly and also known as Pamela Roberts and P.E. Roberts represents and warrants that she is authorized to sign this Agreement on her own behalf as an individual and on behalf of her martial community. 1.9
Reeves. 530 U.S. at 154. reasonably to conclude that the defendant discriminated against the plaintiff.126Even so, the McDonnell Douglas construct, as interpreted in Reeves, has been undermined by the lower courts' more recent interpretations. Many courts have approached this proof mechanism in a formalistic way that makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail; lower courts have used the construct or a plaintiff's failure to prove a case using the construct as an excuse to dismiss the case. This questionable methodology, when combined with a number of ancillary doctrines that create inferences in favor of the defendant, is, as noted by Professor Sandra Sperino, inconsistent with deciding cases on motions for summary judgment, a procedure that requires judges to draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party—the plaintiff in most cases.127 While the McDonnell Douglas construct was originally generally protective of individual employees alleging illegal discrimination, scholars have recently demonstrated that the construct is being misused by lower courts, resulting in the denial of protection to the plaintiffs.128 c. Same Actor Inference The same actor inference has not reached the Supreme Court, but a number of lower courts have held that if the individual who hired the plaintiff in a civil rights action is the same person who discharged or failed to promote the individual, an inference arises that illegal discrimination did not cause the adverse employment action.129 This inference, which is accepted by a number of the courts of appeals and whose effect differs depending on the court, appears to contradict social science research on human behavior.130 Moreover, in some courts, the inference makes it more likely that a defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted, a totally anomalous result at this procedural stage.131
Reeves. 36 A Lott of Cousins, only one child, John Jr. is listed here, p. 134. 37 Manna; it is argued that there must have been a first wife as when property was filed on in St. George’s Parish, Burke, Georgia in 1764, it was John II’s name alone on the documents; this means he was single. No household member would have been omitted in these declarations as the size of the grant was dependent on how many were filing. 38 ‘John Lott II (1720-after 1795)’, online at www.wikitree.com/wiki/Lott-49 ; wikitree can be a useful summary especially since each page has a manager and posted data are a consensus of contributing family members (accessed 7 Jul 2018) hereafter Wikitree. 39 Lott of Cousins, p. 192. 40 Ancestry Family Trees: ‘Beard, Harold, & Daisy (extended)’, tree 33179284—search Member Directory for owner Christopher Beard, no sources cited (accessed 10 Feb 2018). 41 Paulk, Jessie and Delma Wilson Lott Families of Wiregrass, Georgia: ancestors and descendants of Mark & Delilah (Jones) Paulk (Thomasville, Georgia: Craigmales Historical Publications, 1991); FHL 929.273 L916. 42 ABGI, Vol. 104, p. 106.
Reeves. The consolidated balance sheet of the Reeves and its subsidiaries as at November 1, 1997, and the related consolidated statements of income, retained earnings and cash flows of the Reeves and its subsidiaries for the fiscal year then ended, and accompanying notes thereto, which financial statements are accompanied by the audit report of Coopers & Lybrand, independent public accountants, and the unaudited interim consolidated balance sheet of the Reeves and its subsidiaries as at February 28, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of income and retained earnings of the Reeves and its subsidiaries for the four months then ended, heretofore furnished to the Banks, fairly present in all material respects the consolidated financial condition of the Reeves and its subsidiaries as at said dates and the consolidated results of their operations and cash flows for the periods then ended in conformity with GAAP applied on a consistent basis (other than, in respect of interim statements, for the absence of notes and normal year-end audit adjustments). Neither Reeves nor any subsidiary has contingent liabilities which are material to it other than as indicated on such financial statements or, with respect to future periods, on the financial statements furnished pursuant to Section 8.5 hereof.
Reeves. S., Benford, S., O'Malley, C., and Fraser, M. (2005, April). Designing the spectator experience. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 741-750. ACM.
Reeves. 530 U.S. at 141 (quoting Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610 (1993)). opportunity employment).”32 Usually, a prima facie case plus sufficient evidence to reject the employer’s explanation will suffice without more to overcome a motion for summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law.33 But the emphasis is on the need for evidence: “As courts are not free to second-guess an employer’s business judgment, a plaintiff’s mere speculations are insufficient to create a genuine issue of fact regarding an employer’s articulated reasons for its decisions.”34 B. For the sake of argument, though it is debatable, we shall assume there was sufficient evidence that Furline recommended Morrison’s suspension for retaliatory or discriminatory reasons. We also shall assume that, in making his recommendation, Furline was “acting in the interest of” Howard University, and hence that he falls within the definition of an “employer” contained in theDCHRA.35 Nevertheless, Furline was not the decisionmaker. Nor were his fellow supervisors or their immediate superior, Zachariah. While those individuals forwarded the recommendation for Morrison’s suspension up the line, the decision was made at a higher level – by the Assistant Director of Human Resources in conjunction with other senior officials. For Morrison to prevail, therefore, the record must contain evidence that either (1) the actual decisionmakers had retaliatory
Reeves. SAIN DRUG STORE, INC., a Tennessee corporation, as a “Borrower” By: /s/ Joseph Anto Name: Joseph Anto Title: Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer [CORPORATE SEAL] [Signatures continue on following pages.] Seventh Amendment to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Addendum to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Security Agreement, and Ratification, Reaffirmation and Assumption (Fred’s) ADMINISTRATIVE AGENT: REGIONS BANK, as “Administrative Agent” By: /s/ Daniel J. Wells Name: Daniel J. Wells Title: Director [Signatures continue on following pages.] Seventh Amendment to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Addendum to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Security Agreement, and Ratification, Reaffirmation and Assumption (Fred’s) LENDERS: REGIONS BANK By: /s/ Daniel J. Wells Name: Daniel J. Wells Title: Director [Signatures continue on following page.] Seventh Amendment to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Addendum to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Security Agreement, and Ratification, Reaffirmation and Assumption (Fred’s) LENDERS: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. By: /s/ Roger Malouf Name: Roger Malouf Title: Director Seventh Amendment to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Addendum to Credit Agreement, Second Amendment to Security Agreement, and Ratification, Reaffirmation and Assumption (Fred’s) ANNEX I