16 Cited authorities

Teamsters v. United States
431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,596 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
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank Tr.
487 U.S. 977 (1988) Cited 1,374 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"
International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's
939 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1991) Cited 2,304 times
Holding court need not accommodate request for continuance when nonmovant has not diligently pursued the discovery of necessary evidence
Bacon v. Honda of Am. Mfg., Inc.
370 F.3d 565 (6th Cir. 2004) Cited 292 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that the pattern-or-practice method is not available to individual plaintiffs, but noting that pattern-or-practice evidence may nevertheless be relevant to proving an otherwise-viable individual claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework
Melendez v. Illinois Bell Telephone Company
79 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 1996) Cited 175 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no abuse of discretion in choice to impose sanction for discovery failure
Rich v. Martin Marietta Corp.
522 F.2d 333 (10th Cir. 1975) Cited 296 times
Holding that inclusion of "Orientals and American Indians" was not appropriate because they were not similarly situated in terms of numbers in upper echelon of the labor force
Johnson v. Louisiana
351 F.3d 616 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 113 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that a plaintiff may overcome lack of objective qualifications at the prima facie stage if he can establish employer applied objective requirement subjectively by promoting employees lacking the qualification
United States v. N. L. Industries, Inc.
479 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1973) Cited 146 times
In United States v. N.L. Industries, Inc., 479 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1973) the appeals court reversed the trial court's refusal to find that a Title VII violation had been established.
Bing v. Roadway Express, Inc.
485 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1973) Cited 132 times
In Bing, the plaintiffs filed their complaint as a class action but did not subsequently move the district court for a class certification order and one was never entered.
Vuyanich v. Republic Nat. Bank of Dallas
723 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1984) Cited 84 times
Holding that class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members

Champlin v. Manpower Inc.

16 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 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 court need not accommodate request for continuance when nonmovant has not diligently pursued the discovery of necessary evidence

Holding that the pattern-or-practice method is not available to individual plaintiffs, but noting that pattern-or-practice evidence may nevertheless be relevant to proving an otherwise-viable individual claim under the McDonnell Douglas framework

Finding no abuse of discretion in choice to impose sanction for discovery failure

Holding that inclusion of "Orientals and American Indians" was not appropriate because they were not similarly situated in terms of numbers in upper echelon of the labor force

Holding that a plaintiff may overcome lack of objective qualifications at the prima facie stage if he can establish employer applied objective requirement subjectively by promoting employees lacking the qualification

In United States v. N.L. Industries, Inc., 479 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1973) the appeals court reversed the trial court's refusal to find that a Title VII violation had been established.

In Bing, the plaintiffs filed their complaint as a class action but did not subsequently move the district court for a class certification order and one was never entered.

Holding that class representative must possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as the class members