Agency.

23 Cited authorities

Ricci v. DeStefano
557 U.S. 557 (2009) Cited 3,223 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that a city's making promotion decisions based on race would violate Title VII without a "valid defense"
Teamsters v. United States
431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,671 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,729 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank Tr.
487 U.S. 977 (1988) Cited 1,406 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
401 U.S. 424 (1971) Cited 2,783 times 35 Legal Analyses
Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,634 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
490 U.S. 642 (1989) Cited 991 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union
Castaneda v. Partida
430 U.S. 482 (1977) Cited 1,243 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the respondent's showing "that the population of the county was 79.1% Mexican-American, but that, over an 11-year period, only 39% of the persons summoned for grand jury service were Mexican-American" established a prima facie case of discrimination against Mexican-Americans in the county's grand jury selection process
Dothard v. Rawlinson
433 U.S. 321 (1977) Cited 793 times
Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors
Anderson v. Zubieta
180 F.3d 329 (D.C. Cir. 1999) Cited 90 times
Holding continued application of disparate pay policy actionable under Title VII
Section 2000e - Definitions
42 U.S.C. § 2000e Cited 53,078 times 132 Legal Analyses
Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions
Section 2000e-2 - Unlawful employment practices
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 Cited 29,618 times 173 Legal Analyses
Finding it to be unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discrimination against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin”
Section 621 - Congressional statement of findings and purpose
29 U.S.C. § 621 Cited 17,831 times 22 Legal Analyses
Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"
Section 206 - Minimum wage
29 U.S.C. § 206 Cited 9,197 times 103 Legal Analyses
Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”
Section 1614.604 - Filing and computation of time
29 C.F.R. § 1614.604 Cited 141 times 1 Legal Analyses
Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"
Section 1614.405 - Decisions on appeals
29 C.F.R. § 1614.405 Cited 83 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"
Section 1614.403 - How to appeal
29 C.F.R. § 1614.403 Cited 34 times
Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC

Agency.

23 Cited authorities

Holding that a city's making promotion decisions based on race would violate Title VII without a "valid defense"

Holding that a plaintiff who did not apply for a position can still make prima facie showing if he can demonstrate his application for the position would have been futile

Holding that court may not "displace the Board's choice between two fairly conflicting views, even though the court would justifiably have made a different choice had the matter been before it de novo "

Holding that plaintiff has burden to show that a particular employment practice "caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group"

Holding that § 703(h) does not protect use of testing requirements with a disparate impact on racial minorities where the tests were not shown to be related to job performance

Holding that "[w]hen an appellate court discerns that a district court has failed to make a finding because of an erroneous view of the law, the usual rule is that there should be a remand for further proceedings to permit the trial court to make the missing findings"

Holding causation was not demonstrated because plaintiffs had not disproved the possibility that the overrepresentation of minority workers in lower-paying cannery positions was caused by the company's contract with a predominantly non-White labor union

Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors

Holding continued application of disparate pay policy actionable under Title VII

Granting EEOC authority to issue procedural regulations to carry out Title VII provisions

Finding that "older workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts to retain employment, and especially to regain employment when displaced from jobs"

Asking only whether the alleged inequality resulted from “any other factor other than sex”

Providing the time limits applicable to the subject regulations "are subject to waiver, estoppel and equitable tolling"

Providing that " decision [of the EEOC in an administrative appeal] is final . . . unless . . . [e]ither party files a timely request for reconsideration"

Indicating that failure to file timely appeal requires dismissal by EEOC