Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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]
[2] Where a disparate impact is shown, the plaintiff can prevail without the necessity of showing intentional discrimination unless the defendant employer demonstrates that the practice or policy in question has a demonstrable relationship to the requirements of the job in question. [3] This is the "business necessity" defense. [1]
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children.
Case history; Prior: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama: Holding; Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, set height and weight restrictions that have a disproportionately-adverse effect on one gender.
Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981), is a US employment discrimination law case concerning bona fide occupational qualifications. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1]
A group of nonwhite cannery workers including Frank Atonio filed suit in District Court citing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 complaining that the Wards Cove Packing Company, a company that operated several Alaskan salmon canneries, was using discriminatory hiring practices that resulted in a large number of the skilled permanent jobs that mostly did not involve working in a cannery ...
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
Duke Power Co. (1971), the United States Supreme Court held that an employment practice which is nondiscriminatory "on its face", but which has a "disparate impact" in its operation is unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, unless the employer is able to show that the practice is a "business necessity". The term "business ...