Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
To "reconcile" the supposed "conflict" between disparate treatment and disparate impact, the Court offers an enigmatic standard. Ante, at 20. Employers may attempt to comply with Title VII's disparate-impact provision, the Court declares, only where there is a "strong basis in evidence" documenting the necessity of their action. Ante, at 22.
Case history; Prior: 798 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (N.D. Okla. 2011); reversed, 731 F.3d 1106 (10th Cir. 2013); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 44 (2014).: Holding; To prevail in a Title VII disparate-treatment claim, an applicant need show only that their need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's decision, not that the employer had knowledge of their need.
Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender ...
The case is Missouri ex rel Bailey v Starbucks Corp, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, No. 25-00165. (Reporting by Jonathan Stempel; Editing by Lisa Shumaker, David Gregorio and ...
Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. [1] It is generally considered the first case of its type. [2]
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. Seven members of the Court (1) agreed that disparate impact analysis may be applied to allegedly discriminatory subjective or discretionary employment practices, and (2) agreed regarding certain aspects of the evidentiary standards applicable in such case
Supreme Court of the United States: 1973 Geduldig v. Aiello: disability insurance benefits for female workers during normal pregnancy: Supreme Court of the United States: 1974 Goesaert v. Cleary: employment as bartenders: Supreme Court of the United States: 1948 Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. limits to minority and female employment
A ruling in her favor by the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, could make it easier for non-minorities, including white people and heterosexuals, to pursue claims of illegal ...