When.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter_v._Goodyear_Tire...

    Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), is an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. [1] The result was that employers could not be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims were based on decisions made by the employer 180 days or more before the claim.

  3. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes

    Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender ...

  4. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins

    The court also elaborated on the meaning of "gender play[ing] a motivating part in an employment decision", saying that it meant that if, at the moment the decision was made, one of the reasons for making the decision was that the applicant or employee was a woman, then that decision was motivated by gender discrimination.

  5. Griggs v. Duke Power Co. - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griggs_v._Duke_Power_Co.

    Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971), was a court case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 14, 1970. It concerned employment discrimination and the disparate impact theory, and was decided on March 8, 1971. [1] It is generally considered the first case of its type. [2]

  6. Washington v. Davis - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Davis

    In the years following Washington, the Court held that laws must be motivated by purposeful discrimination, not just have a discriminatory effect, to be unconstitutional. In Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v Feeney 442 US 256 (1979) held legislation obnoxious to the Equal Protection Clause is passed "because of , not merely in spite of ...

  7. Supreme Court Rules for Employees in Unusual Anti ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/news/2011-01-24-supreme-court-rules...

    By a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that anti-discrimination laws forbid employers from firing a complaining employee's fiance. In the case of Thompson v. North American Stainless ...

  8. DeGraffenreid v. General Motors - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeGraffenreid_v._General...

    DeGraffenreid v. General Motors, 413 F. Supp. 142 (E.D. Mo. 1976), was a legal case in which a United States district court held that black women could not sue for discrimination as a group when they were unable to demonstrate that the defendant discriminated against black people generally, or against women generally, and that the statutory protections against discrimination based on race and ...

  9. Age in America: Age discrimination is illegal, but why is it ...

    www.aol.com/age-america-age-discrimination...

    As part of our "Age in America" series, discrimination attorney Michael Lieder joins us this week to explain why it can be difficult to prove age discrimination in the workplace.