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: Judgment for plaintiff, 618 F. Supp. 1109 (D.D.C. 1985); Affirmed, 263 U.S. App. D.C. 321, 825 F.2d 458 (1987): Holding; Once a Title VII plaintiff proves that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant can only avoid a finding of liability by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision regardless of ...
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.
The Court responded that even if there had been gender-based disparate treatment by state authorities in that case, precedents such as the Civil Rights Cases limit the manner in which Congress may remedy discrimination, and they require a civil remedy to be directed at a state or a state actor, not a private party. The Court stated that such ...
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
Califano v. Goldfarb, 430 U.S. 199 (1977), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, [1] which held that the different treatment of men and women mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 402(f)(1)(D) [2] constituted invidious discrimination against female wage earners by affording them less protection for their surviving spouses than is provided to male employees, and therefore violated the Due ...
The U.S. Supreme Court is due next Wednesday to hear arguments in her bid to revive her civil rights lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Youth Services after lower courts threw it out. She is ...
Supreme Court of the United States: 1982 Mmusi and Others v Ramantele and Another: inheritance by women under customary law: Botswana Court of Appeal: 2013 Native Women's Assn of Canada v Canada: financial support for interest groups: Supreme Court of Canada: 1994 Orr v. Orr: alimony: Supreme Court of the United States: 1979 Pao v. Kleiner Perkins