Agency.

13 Cited authorities

Teamsters v. United States
431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,664 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 9,707 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"
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,630 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
Hazelwood School District v. United States
433 U.S. 299 (1977) Cited 876 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that to “constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination,” a plaintiff must show “gross statistical disparities”
Bazemore v. Friday
478 U.S. 385 (1986) Cited 645 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding disparate-pay claim timely, despite genesis of disparity in segregation long since abandoned, because "[e]ach week's paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is [inherently] a wrong actionable under Title VII"
Dothard v. Rawlinson
433 U.S. 321 (1977) Cited 793 times
Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors
New York Transit Authority v. Beazer
440 U.S. 568 (1979) Cited 484 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that transit authority was justified in refusing to hire methadone users for "safety-sensitive" positions
Bullington v. United Air Lines, Inc.
186 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir. 1999) Cited 464 times
Holding that the plaintiff's "own opinions about her qualifications d[id] not give rise to a material fact dispute"
Section 2000e-16 - Employment by Federal Government
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16 Cited 5,062 times 20 Legal Analyses
Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"

Agency.

13 Cited authorities

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 "[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 that to “constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination,” a plaintiff must show “gross statistical disparities”

Holding disparate-pay claim timely, despite genesis of disparity in segregation long since abandoned, because "[e]ach week's paycheck that delivers less to a black than to a similarly situated white is [inherently] a wrong actionable under Title VII"

Holding impermissible minimum statutory height and weight requirements for correctional counselors

Holding that transit authority was justified in refusing to hire methadone users for "safety-sensitive" positions

Holding that the plaintiff's "own opinions about her qualifications d[id] not give rise to a material fact dispute"

Adopting provisions of § 2000e-5(f)-(k), including that "[e]ach United States district court . . . shall have jurisdiction of actions brought under this subchapter"