Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Griggs v. Duke Power Company. 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.
Disparate impact. Appearance. Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by ...
Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic (e.g. race or sex) under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats ...
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court on unlawful discrimination through disparate impact under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department, [1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, passed the test for promotion to a management ...
Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Laws applied. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988), is a United States Supreme Court case on United States labor law, concerning proof of disparate treatment under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .
After applying the disparate impact analysis, it held that Test 21 did not have a discriminatory effect on blacks. The Court held that the Court of Appeals had erroneously assumed that the stricter, effects-based "disparate impact" test, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , existed under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause ...
Disparate impact is a facially neutral housing policy that negatively impacts minorities or other protected groups of people. [31] The Supreme Court upheld the decades long practice of holding housing providers liable for housing discrimination under a disparate impact theory in 2015. [32]
Bianco's opinion states in no uncertain terms that "an aggregate disparate impact on Asian-American students" is unnecessary to establish an Equal Protection Clause claim under the 14th Amendment.