Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green | Statement: [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmarkCase, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green]

Target entity: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Context triple: [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmarkCase, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green]

• A. United States v. Darby
  United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
• B. Briggs v. Elliott
  Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
• C. Katzenbach v. McClung
  Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• D. Bolling v. Sharpe
  Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• E. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
  Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
• F. None of above. chosen
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

Generate a one-sentence description of the target entity. 
You are given a context triple in the form (subject, predicate, object), where the object is the target entity. 
# Instructions
Use the triple to infer relevant information about the entity. Describe the entity based on what is most defining, well-known. 
Avoid repeating the information from the triple, unless really essential.
# Response Format
Return only the sentence: "Description: [one-sentence description of the target entity]"

Entity: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Triple: [Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, landmarkCase, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green]

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.

Target entity: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
Target entity description: McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.

• A. United States v. Darby
  United States v. Darby is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld federal labor regulations under the Commerce Clause and marked a broad expansion of federal power over economic activity.
• B. Briggs v. Elliott
  Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
• C. Katzenbach v. McClung
  Katzenbach v. McClung is a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the federal government’s power to prohibit racial discrimination in local restaurants under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• D. Bolling v. Sharpe
  Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
• E. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
  Griggs v. Duke Power Co. is a 1971 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the doctrine of disparate impact in employment discrimination law, holding that seemingly neutral job requirements that disproportionately exclude protected groups can violate Title VII.
• F. None of above. chosen