Phr Hr Case Law

Front 1

Griggs v. Duke Power
1971

Back 1

ADVERSE IMPACT (oops)
est. the discrimination need not be intentional
place burden on ER to prove req's are job-related

coal handler - job w/ hs grad req

Front 2

McDonnell Douglas v. Green 1973

Back 2

DISPARATE TREATMENT
(intentional)
prima facie (on 1st view) case can be shown if
app in protected class
app qualified & rejected
app rejected & ER kept looking

mechanic - picket - rejected

Front 3

Albemarle Paper v. Moody
1975

Back 3

Test used for promotion/selection must be a valid predictor for job success

emp tests = poor predictors of job success

Front 4

Washington v. Davis
1976

Back 4

Test is legal if it is job-related even though it has adverse impact (oops)

Written exam effected black candidates for P.D. position

Front 5

Regents U of Cal v. Bakke
1979

Back 5

Reverse discrimination
can consider race as a factor in admissions process
medical school

Front 6

United Steelworkers v. Weber
1979

Back 6

reverse discrimination?
plan was temporary - to break down imbalance

more seniority but denied admin to training program

Front 7

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
1986

Back 7

Sexual harassment violates Title VII regardless of Quid Pro Quo (this for that) or Hostile Environment

Front 8

Johnson v. Santa Clara County
1987

Back 8

Ok for AAP designed to correct an imbalance to "discriminate"

est gender as discrim factor
as long as not a quota system
M scored higher than F

Front 9

School Bd of Nassau v. Arline
1987

Back 9

Contagious diseases covered by REHAB Act - prohibits discrimination

teacher w/ TB dismissed

Front 10

Leggett v. 1st Nat'l Bank of OR
1987

Back 10

Invasion of privacy = ER met with EAP dr and Q'd re EE

Front 11

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co
1989

Back 11

Rigid numerical quota system = unconstitutional
City had not laid proper groundwork for plan

Front 12

Johnson Controls
1990

Back 12

Welfare of future children must be left to parents not ER

Front 13

Electromation v. NLRB
1992

Back 13

Action committees were illegal "labor organizations" - management controlled & used to deal w/ EE working conditions
= violation of NLRA

Front 14

E.I. Dupont v. NLRB
1993

Back 14

Safety & fitness committees = ER dominated
= violation of NLRA

Front 15

Harris v. Forklift Systems
1993

Back 15

EE does NOT have to prove concrete psychological harm to est Title VII violation

"reasonable person" would find hostile

Front 16

St Mary's Honor Ctr v. Hicks
1993

Back 16

EE must prove ER's reason for adverse action is based on a lie and the lie was to cover up discrimination

Corrections Officer - demotion because of race

Front 17

Taxman v Bd of Ed Piscataway
1993

Back 17

ER could not use racial diversity as justification for AAP - where no evidence of past bias against racial minorities

laid off white teacher & retained black teacher - based on race only

Front 18

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing
1995

Back 18

after-acquired evidence cannot free an ER from discrimination liability, even if the misconduct would have justified terminating the EE

can be considered when awarding damages

Front 19

PepsiCo v. Redmond
1995

Back 19

Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine
No noncompete contract - left Pepsi to work for Gatorade/Snapple - had detailed knowledge of Pepsi trade secrets

Front 20

Faragher v Boca Raton
Ellerth v Burlington Northern
1998

Back 20

Harassment results in tangible employment action = ER is liable

Faragher - female lifeguard harassed by supv
sexual harassment policy not communicated to EE's
Ellerth - mgr threatened adverse action but she continued to receive promotions

Front 21

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore
1998

Back 21

Same gender harassment is actionable under Title VII

Front 22

Kolstad v American Dental Assoc
1999

Back 22

Creates safe harbor from punitive damages for ER's w/ good-faith antidiscrimination practices

Front 23

Sutton v. United Airlines
1999

Back 23

No disability if condition is controlled or corrected by meds or mitigating measures

Front 24

Circuit City v. Adams
2000

Back 24

Pre-hire emp application = disputes settled by arbitration = enforceable

Front 25

NLRB v. Weingarten
2000 / 2004

Back 25

Non-unionized shop = not entitled to have coworker accompany to an interview w/ ER
even if interview might result in discipline
04 reverses 00 Weingarten which had extended right to non's

Front 26

Crown Cork v. Seal
2001

Back 26

NLRB lifted some restrictions on ER use of EE participation committees

Front 27

EEOC v. Waffle House
2002

Back 27

Even if mandatory arbitration agreement in place - civil rights agency can still sue on behalf of EE

Front 28

Grutter v. Bollinger (U of M)
Gratz v. Bollinger (U of M)
2003

Back 28

Diversity of students - can use race as long as admissions policy is narrowly tailored to achieve goal
law(Grutter) = yes
undergrad(Gratz) = no

Front 29

Gen'l Dynamics Land v. Cline
2004

Back 29

Fed'l age discrimination laws does not protect younger workers from decisions that favor older workers

Front 30

Penn State Police v. Suders
2004

Back 30

increases importance of ER prevention and correction

if last straw wasn't an official act of ER = ER can defend on ground EE did not give ER opportunity to solve problem