422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,618 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
401 U.S. 424 (1971) Cited 2,767 times 34 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
Holding that plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies as to a theory of discrimination when the facts underlying the theory were apparent in the charge of discrimination
Holding that the EEOC has the authority to rescind one NTRS and replace it with another but only if it gives both parties notice of its intent to do so within the 90-day period provided by the initial NTRS
Holding that statistics that "did not demonstrate that women received grade increases less often than men as a regular occurrence" failed to establish disparate impact
Holding that the continued maintenance of a pre-Title VII discriminatory benefits policy is actionable after the effective date of Title VII as a continuing violation of the statute
Holding that a practice of providing negative references to prospective employers with discriminatory motives "plainly would establish a severe constriction of job-market access.... erect artificial barriers that Congress endeavored to foreclose and ... is outlawed by Section 703."
Holding that plaintiff who did not apply for a promotion could establish prima facie case for discrimination where her employer's policy meant that an employee “had to be sought out” for promotion