7 Cited authorities

  1. Ricci v. DeStefano

    557 U.S. 557 (2009)   Cited 2,291 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a city's making promotion decisions based on race would violate Title VII without a "valid defense"
  2. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

    401 U.S. 424 (1971)   Cited 2,656 times   31 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
  3. Ernst v. City of Chi.

    39 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (N.D. Ill. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Allowing the defendants to cast doubt onto an expert industrial psychologist's new methods on cross-examination
  4. United States v. City of Buffalo

    457 F. Supp. 612 (W.D.N.Y. 1978)   Cited 49 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Buffalo Fire Department engaged in pattern or practice of hiring and promotion discrimination against African Americans, Latinos, and women
  5. Godfrey v. City of Chi.

    973 F. Supp. 2d 883 (N.D. Ill. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    No. 12 C 08601. 2013-09-25 Katherine GODFREY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant. Marni J. Willenson, Willenson Law, LLC, Chicago, IL, David Borgen, Lin Yee Chan, Teresa Demchak, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, Oakland, CA, Susan Patricia Malone, Attorney at Law, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs. Allan T. Slagel, Cary E. Donham, Erin K. Lynch, Heather Ann Jackson, Shefsky & Froelich Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendant. JOHN J. THARP Marni J. Willenson, Willenson Law, LLC, Chicago, IL, David

  6. United States v. City of Buffalo

    633 F.2d 643 (2d Cir. 1980)   Cited 20 times
    Modifying November 23, 1979 Remedial Decree by striking provision directing City to seek to achieve "long term goal" of reaching minority composition of police officers and firefighters comparable to that of City's work force as a whole according to census; affirming as modified
  7. Section 2000e-2 - Unlawful employment practices

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2   Cited 23,556 times   128 Legal Analyses
    Providing that an employer is liable if an employee establishes that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in an employment action