Jane Van De Car, Mary Gross, Mary Clare Murphy, Complainants, v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
521 U.S. 591 (1997) Cited 6,994 times 69 Legal Analyses
Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval
Universal Camera Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
340 U.S. 474 (1951) Cited 9,575 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 1,379 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 2,765 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
Pullman-Standard v. Swint
456 U.S. 273 (1982) Cited 1,614 times 4 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"
Gen. Tel. Co. v. EEOC
446 U.S. 318 (1980) Cited 1,388 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
490 U.S. 642 (1989) Cited 980 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
Coleman v. Watt
40 F.3d 255 (8th Cir. 1994) Cited 457 times
Holding that a deprivation must be permanent to be considered a fine for purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause
Geller v. Markham
635 F.2d 1027 (2d Cir. 1980) Cited 169 times
Holding that disparate impact is a substantive theory warranting the same treatment under the ADEA as under Title VII
Kent-Chojnicki v. Runyon
180 F.R.D. 237 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) Cited 3 times
In Kent-Chojnicki v. Runyon, 180 F.R.D. 237 (W.D.N.Y. 1998), postal service employees alleged that the postal service violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, after they suffered work related injuries resulting in partial disability.

Jane Van De Car, Mary Gross, Mary Clare Murphy, Complainants, v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, Agency.

10 Cited authorities

Holding that courts are "bound to enforce" Rule 23's certification requirements, even where it means decertifying a class after they had reached a settlement agreement and submitted it to the court for approval

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 that "the EEOC's enforcement suits should not be considered representative actions subject to Rule 23"

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 a deprivation must be permanent to be considered a fine for purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause

Holding that disparate impact is a substantive theory warranting the same treatment under the ADEA as under Title VII

In Kent-Chojnicki v. Runyon, 180 F.R.D. 237 (W.D.N.Y. 1998), postal service employees alleged that the postal service violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701, after they suffered work related injuries resulting in partial disability.