enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

    See ante, at 27 ("The pass rates of minorities ... f[e]ll well below the 80-percent standard set by the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)] to implement the disparate-impact provision of Title VII."). New Haven thus had cause for concern about the prospect of Title VII litigation and liability.

  3. Rogers v. American Airlines (1981) - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._American...

    Braided hairstyles, such as cornrows, were at the center of Rogers v.American Airlines' legal discourse.. Rogers v. American Airlines was a 1981 legal case decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving plaintiff Renee Rogers, a Black woman who brought charges against her employer, American Airlines, for both sex and race discrimination after she ...

  4. Disparate impact - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

    Therefore, the disparate impact theory under Title VII prohibits employers "from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its ...

  5. McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_burden...

    In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.

  6. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burlington_Northern_&_Santa...

    Case history; Prior: White v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Co., 364 F.3d 789 (6th Cir. 2004). Holding; The anti-retaliation provision (42 U. S. C. §2000e–3(a)) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.

  7. United Steelworkers v. Weber - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Steelworkers_v._Weber

    United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), was a case regarding affirmative action in which the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, [1] which prohibits racial discrimination by private employers, does not condemn all private, voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action plans. [2]

  8. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_Corp._v...

    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

  9. Civil Rights Act of 1991 - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991

    The 1991 Act was intended to strengthen the protections afforded by 2 different civil rights acts: the Civil Rights Act of 1866, better known by the number assigned to it in the codification of federal laws as Section 1981, and the employment-related provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, generally referred to as Title VII.