Legal Cases Flashcards
Case in which Supreme Court held that the diversity of a student body is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions as long as the admissions policy is “narrowly tailored” to achieve this goal.
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) - (University prevailed) and
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) (did not make this showing)
Module 2
Precedence case that recognized adverse impact discrimination.
Employment discrimination need not be overt or intentional to be illegal.
Employment practices can be illegal even when applied to all employees.
Griggs v. Duke Power (1971)
Module 2
Case that established the criteria for disparate treatment discrimination.
The Supreme Court ruled that individuals can show a prima facie case of disparate treatment in a hiring situation if they can demonstrate that they:
- Belong to a racial minority or other protected group under Title VII.
- Applied for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants.
- Were rejected despite being qualified.
- Were rejected and yet the employer kept looking for people with their qualifications.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973)
Module 2
Need to establish evidence that test is related to content of the job; could use job analysis to do so but not evidence from global performance ratings made by supervisors.
This ruling strengthened the principles in Griggs and placed great importance on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures.
Albemarle Paper v. Moody (1975)
Module 2
When a test procedure is challenged under constitutional law, intent to discriminate must be established; no need to establish intent if filed under Title VII, just show effects.
To be unconstitutional (under constitutional law) racial discrimination by the government must contain two elements: a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory impact.
Washington v. Davis (1976)
Module 2
Reverse discrimination not allowed; race, however, can be used in selection decisions; affirmative action programs permissible when prior discrimination established.
It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students were impermissible.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)
Module 2
Court ruling dealing with reverse discrimination charges; upheld that Title VII allows for voluntary, private, race-conscious programs aimed at eliminating racial imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories.
Supreme Court ruled that the affirmative action plan did not violate Title VII since it included voluntary quotas.
United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979)
Module 2
Supreme Court held that sexual harassment that alters an individual’s terms and conditions of employment violates Title VII of Civil Rights Act.
A claim of “hostile environment” sexual harassment is a form of sex discrimination that is actionable under the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1] Title VII.
The Court pointed out that guidelines issued by the EEOC specified that sexual harassment leading to noneconomic injury was a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII.
Court also ruled that common-law principles should be applied to guide lower courts in determining employer liability. How these principles are to be applied was later defined in Faragher and Ellerth.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)
Module 2
Supreme Court ruled that the county was justified in giving a job to a woman who scored two points less on an exam than a man; county had an affirmative action plan that was flexible, temporary, and designed to correct the imbalance of white males in the workforce.
The Court held for the employer (even a private) arguing that an employer can take voluntary affirmative action to remedy its own prior discriminatory practices or where there is a manifest imbalance in traditionally segregated job categories, even if there is no arguable violation on its part.
Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (1987)
Module 2
Court ruled that persons with contagious diseases could be covered by the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
School Board of Nassau v. Airline (1987)
Model 2
Supreme Court ruled that the rigid numerical quota system was unconstitutional; city had not laid proper groundwork and had not identified or documented discrimination.
City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company (1989)
Module 2
Supreme Court ruled that in a sexual harassment case the plaintiff does not have to prove concrete psychological harm to establish a Title VII violation.
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993)
Module 2
Supreme Court ruling that Title VII plaintiff must show that discrimination was the real reason for an employer’s action.
The Court ruled that it is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that the employer lied. The plaintiff still has the burden of proof and must show that the lie was to cover up illegal discrimination.
St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993)
Module 2
District court held that a school board could not use racial diversity as an educational goal or as a justification for an affirmative action plan granting racial preference in layoffs where there was no evidence of past bias against racial minorities.
U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that “a nonremedial affirmative action plan cannot form the basis for deviating from the antidiscrimination mandate of Title VII.”
Taxman v. Board of Education of Piscataway (1993)
Module 2
Supreme Court held that evidence of misconduct acquired after the decision to terminate cannot free an employer from liability, even if the misconduct would have justified terminating the employee.
This does not mean, however, that after-acquired evidence is useless. The Court went on to state that in some cases, such evidence still may be used to cut off certain damages, including damages suffered after the prior misconduct was discovered.
McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (1995)
Module 2
Court rulings that distinguished between supervisor harassment that results in tangible employment action and that which does not. When harassment results in tangible employment action, the employer is liable.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) and
Ellerth v. Burlington Northern Industries (1998)
Module 2
Ruled that same-gender harassment is actionable under Title VII.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service, Inc. (1998)
Module 2
Supreme Court ruled that the federal age discrimination law does not protect younger workers - even if they are over 40 - from workplace decisions that favor older workers.
General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc. v. Cline (2004)
Module 2
Supreme Court held that in the absence of a tangible employment action, the Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense is available in a constructive discharge claim to an employer whose supervisors are charged with harassment.
However, if a supervisor’s “official act” is what “precipitates” the constructive discharge, then the affirmative defense does not apply.
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004)
Module 2
Case in which Supreme Court held that Age Discrimination in Employment Act, like in Title VII authorizes recovery on a disparate impact theory but with narrower scope than that provided under Title VII.
(an employer need to show only that its practice or policy was based on reasonable factors other than age -a significantly lesser standard than required under Title VII)
Smith v. Jackson, Mississippi (2005)
Module 2
In this case, the Court of Appeals held that to issue a “real” offer under the ADA, an employer must have completed all nonmedical components of the application process or be able to demonstrate that it could not reasonably have done so before issuing the offer
Leonel v. American Airlines (2005)
Module 2
Supreme Court decision that held that the 180-day time limit for filing a charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act started after the alleged unlawful employment action and di not restart upon receipt of each successive paycheck; overruled by Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)
Module 2
Supreme Court held that employers may violate Title VII when they engage in race-conscious decision making to address adverse impact - unless they can demonstrate a “strong basis in evidence” that, had they not taken the action, they would have been liable under a disparate impact theory.
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009)
Module 2
This case demonstrated the unforeseeable business circumstances exception to WARN.
The employer was forced to lay off over 200 employees when its largest customer suddenly dropped its account. The court held that the employer had no choice but to lay its employees off and that it gave as much notice as was practicable under the circumstances.”
Gross v. Hale-Halsell Co. (2009)
Module 2
