§Why CasetextPricing

Bert, et al v. AK Steel Corporation

MOTION for Summary Judgment on the Claims of the Ashland Plaintiffs and Ashland Class

12 Cited authorities

  1. 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"

  2. Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio

    490 U.S. 642 (1989)   Cited 977 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

  3. Hazelwood School District v. United States

    433 U.S. 299 (1977)   Cited 870 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to “constitute prima facie proof of a pattern or practice of discrimination,” a plaintiff must show “gross statistical disparities”

  4. Perkins v. Silverstein

    939 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1991)   Cited 738 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that receipt of right-to-sue letter after complaint was filed cured the exhaustion deficiency

  5. Williams v. Ford Motor Co.

    187 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 1999)   Cited 354 times
    Holding that the report and affidavits submitted by plaintiffs' expert were wholly insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact where the expert's opinions were entirely conclusory, were not supported by any specific data, and were premised on an unsupported factual assertion

  6. Rose v. Wells Fargo Co.

    902 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990)   Cited 330 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that statistical disparities must support an inference of causation

  7. Puckett v. Tennessee Eastman Co.

    889 F.2d 1481 (6th Cir. 1989)   Cited 313 times
    Holding that equitable tolling was not warranted where the plaintiff merely requested withdrawal of her EEOC charges but did not request a right-to-sue letter; stating that "[s]uch a decision flouts the statutory requirement of a receipt of a right-to-sue letter, and amounts to a position of arrogance regarding the statutory requirement as mere surplusage"

  8. Rivers v. Barberton Board of Education

    143 F.3d 1029 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 157 times
    Holding that obtaining a right-to-sue letter is a waivable precondition to suit, not a jurisdictional prerequisite

  9. Coates v. Johnson Johnson

    756 F.2d 524 (7th Cir. 1985)   Cited 190 times
    Holding "only the underlying documents, and not the summaries, must be made available to the opposing party" under Rule 1006

  10. Jones v. Truck Drivers Local Union No. 299

    748 F.2d 1083 (6th Cir. 1984)   Cited 51 times
    Filing a complaint with the EEOC is a necessary, jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court; only the timeliness of the filing may be waived or tolled

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,160 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit