431 U.S. 324 (1977) Cited 4,599 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
487 U.S. 977 (1988) Cited 1,375 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"
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
Holding that "a decision made by an employer that only limits an employee's opportunities for promotion or lateral transfer does not qualify as an adverse employment action under Title VII"
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.