Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Ricci v. DeStefano , 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez, 540 U.S. 44 (2003) Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) — held the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 authorizes disparate impact lawsuits; Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory, 554 U.S. 84 (2008) Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009) Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v.
Did not participate in the decision: Decisions that do not note an argument date were decided without oral argument. Decisions that do not note a Justice delivering the Court's opinion are per curiam. Multiple concurrences and dissents within a case are numbered, with joining votes numbered accordingly.
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 July 16, 2009, the second round of questioning continued with Senator Jon Kyl. Kyl immediately began asking about the Supreme Court's precedent in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. Sotomayor stated that the precedent involved "the city discriminating a certain race", despite stating that there was no precedent, while originally ruling on the case.
In his concurring opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito singled out Kimber for having political motivations in his decision to set aside the results. This brought Kimber into the center of the controversy and led to mass media attention. [ 14 ]
The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding below—that Lynch v. Arizona , 578 U.S. 613, did not represent a “significant change in the law” for purposes of permitting Cruz to file a successive petition for state postconviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g)—is not an adequate state-law ground supporting that judgment.
Of her cases, the Second Circuit rulings in Ricci v. DeStefano received the most attention during the early nomination discussion, [187] motivated by the Republican desire to focus on the reverse racial discrimination aspect of the case. [181] In the midst of her confirmation process the Supreme Court overturned that ruling on June 29. [153]