An applicant does not have to have proof that “he was rejected because of his protection status”. The plaintiff only had to prove that “he was rejected despite his reservations.” The two standards are very different. In McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), it was held that a plaintiff must draw a conclusion of a difference in treatment in order to establish prima facie evidence, not factual evidence of such treatment. Also in McDonnell Douglas, it was found that, in order to establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff did not have to prove that discrimination was the motivating factor for his dismissal. All he has to do is conclude that such misconduct has occurred. A prima facie case is the establishment of a rebuttable presumption prescribed by law. Prima facie evidence is a cause of action or defence sufficiently supported by a party`s evidence to warrant a judgment in its favour, unless such evidence is refuted by the other party.

The Latin term Prima-Facie means “at first glance”. From a legal point of view, this means that the evidence is sufficient to establish a presumption of fact or to establish the fact in question, provided that it is not called into question. In a prima facie action, the facts are presented as sufficient to show that the underlying conduct supports the plea and will prove to be a winner in court. Prima facie also refers to specific evidence that, if believed, supports a case or element that must be proven in the case. The term prima facie evidence is used in civil and criminal law. For example, if, in a murder case, the prosecution presents a videotape showing the accused shouting death threats against the victim, that evidence may be prima facie evidence of intent to kill, something that must be proven by the prosecution before the accused can be convicted of murder. At first glance, the evidence suggests that the accused intended to kill the victim. Prima facie evidence in law is sufficient to establish the fact, unless it is called into question. If, for example, buildings are set on fire by sparks emanating from a train locomotive passing on the road, this is prima facie evidence of the railway company`s negligence. Although prima facie evidence may be brought before the courts, the plaintiff is not guaranteed to succeed. Civil actions place the burden of proof on the plaintiff, and only if the plaintiff is able to present a preponderance of evidence will the court consider the claim valid. If the plaintiff does not have sufficient evidence to support his claim that the defendant caused harm, the court may rule against the plaintiff and dismiss the case.

If the court concludes that there is a prima facie case, the defendant must provide evidence that outweighs the prima facie evidence to prevail. The term is also used in academic philosophy. Among the most notable applications is the theory of ethics, first proposed by W. D. Ross in his book The Right and the Good, often called Ethics of Prima Facie Duties, as well as in epistemology used by Robert Audi, for example. It is usually used as part of an obligation. “I have a prima facie obligation to keep my promise and meet my friend” means that I am under commitment, but this may give way to a more urgent duty. A more modern usage prefers the obligation of title pro tanto: an obligation that can then be cancelled by another, more urgent; It exists only pro tempore. A common use of the term is the concept of “prima facie speed limit” used in Australia and the United States. A prima facie speed limit is a standard speed limit that applies when no other specific speed limit is specified and can be exceeded by a driver.

However, if the driver is discovered and summoned by the police for exceeding the limit, it is up to the driver to prove that the speed at which he was driving was safe in the circumstances. In most countries, this type of speed limit has been replaced by absolute speed limits. The term prima facie is sometimes misspelled prima facia, in the misconception that facia is the actual Latin word; However, faciē is actually the ablative of faciēs, a Latin noun with a fifth declension. In common law jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, the prosecution must pass all evidence to the defense in a criminal case. This includes prima facie evidence. Suppose an applicant claims that an employer failed to promote her because of her gender. The applicant must provide affirmative evidence that the employer applied illegal and discriminatory criteria when deciding on the employment that concerned him. The employer, as respondent, does not have the burden of proof until the plaintiff has provided prima facie evidence of discrimination on the basis of sex (Texas Department of Community Affairs v.

Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 pp. Ct. 1089, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 [1981]). The exact amount of evidence that constitutes prima facie evidence varies from allegation to allegation. If the applicant does not provide prima facie evidence with sufficient evidence, the judge may dismiss the case. Or, if the case is heard by a jury, the judge may ask the jury to render a judgment for the defendant.

The concept of prima facie can be a bit confusing if you have little or no knowledge of how the law works.