Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The disparate impact theory has application also in the housing context under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act. The ten federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue have all determined that one may establish a Fair Housing Act violation through the disparate impact theory of liability.
Justice Alito argued that the Fair Housing Act never authorized such disparate impact claims in 1968, when the law was enacted, "[a]nd nothing has happened since then to change the law's meaning". [16] Justice Thomas also issued a separate dissenting opinion in which he questioned Justice Kennedy's reliance upon Griggs v.
On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. Seven members of the Court (1) agreed that disparate impact analysis may be applied to allegedly discriminatory subjective or discretionary employment practices, and (2) agreed regarding certain aspects of the evidentiary standards applicable in such case
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]
In 1977, there were height and weight restrictions (minimum 5’2”, 120 lbs) to be considered as an applicant for an Alabama prison guard. Such requirements ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who brought forth a class action suit against the requirements under the disparate impact theory of Title VII.
Case history; Prior: Judgment for defendants, 392 F. Supp. 1276 (E.D. Mo. 1975); reversed, 534 F.2d 805 (8th Cir. 1976); certiorari granted, 429 U.S. 1037 (year).: Holding; In addition to considering the correct relevant labor market in a Title VII disparate-impact case, consider whether the impact that could have been caused by actions taken before Title VII was applied to the employer.
In this section, two theories are laid out: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Disparate treatment is what most people commonly think of discrimination- intentional. Under this theory, the employee must belong to a protected class, apply and be qualified for a job where the employer was seeking applicants, and get rejected from the job ...
In United States employment discrimination law, McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting or the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework refers to the procedure for adjudicating a motion for summary judgement under a Title VII disparate treatment claim, in particular a "private, non-class action challenging employment discrimination", [1] that lacks direct evidence of discrimination.