Citation network
General Elec. Co. Vs. Gilbert
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 07, 1976
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 125 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court General Elec. Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
U.S. 125 (1976) General Electric Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
in violation of Title VII. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the intervening decision in Geduldig v. AielloSearch
-
District Court's judgment was rendered and the time this case was decided by the Court of Appeals, we decided Geduldig v. AielloSearch
-
to the concerns which Congress manifested in enacting Title VII. We think, therefore, that our decision in Geduldig v. AielloSearch
-
his case is thus a far cry from cases like Reed v. ReedSearch
-
U. S. 71 (1971), and Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
to reach the question of what sort of standard would govern our review had there been such a showing. See Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
-
facially neutral plan or classification is to discriminate against members of one class or another. See Washington v. DavisSearch
-
Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
a)(1), but cf. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSearch
-
Phillips v. MartinSearch
-
did not confer upon the EEOC authority to promulgate rules or regulations pursuant to that Title. Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
Espinoza v. FarahSearch
-
than to administrative regulations which Congress has declared shall have the force of law, see Standard Oil Co. v. JohnsonSearch
-
most comprehensive statement of the role of interpretative rulings such as the EEOC guidelines is found in Skidmore v. SwiftSearch
-
in the past where they conflicted with earlier pronouncements of the agency. United Housing Foundation, Inc. v. FormanSearch
-
infer that it meant something different from what the concept of discrimination has traditionally meant, cf. Morton v. MancariSearch
-
Ozawa v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 178 , 260 U. S. 193 (1922). There is surely no reason for any such inference here, see Gemsco v. WallingSearch
-
Together with No. 74-1590, Gilbert et al. v. GeneralSearch
-
establishing that the acts they complain of constituted discrimination in violation of Title VII. Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
Jefferson v. HackneySearch
-
prove a discriminatory effect. Unlike my Brother BLACKMUN, I do not understand the opinion to question either Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
inference or suggestion is there -- that effect may never be a controlling factor in a Title VII case, or that Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
the unanimous conclusion of all six Courts of Appeals that have addressed this question. See Communications Workers v. AmericanSearch
-
Wetzel v. LibertySearch
-
Gilbert v. GeneralSearch
-
Tyler v. VickerySearch
-
Satty v. NashvilleSearch
-
Hutchison v. LakeSearch
-
This reasoning relies primarily upon the descriptive statement borrowed from Page 429 U. S. 148 Geduldig v. AielloSearch
-
plan is incompatible with the overall objectives of Title VII has been unjustifiably rejected. II Geduldig v. AielloSearch
-
Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
this Court, See Washington Page 429 U. S. 154 v. DavisSearch
-
U. S. 158 no basis for concluding that the guideline is out of step with congressional intent. See Espinoza v. FarahSearch
-
Train v. NaturalSearch
-
ante at 429 U. S. 139 , is plainly out of step with the decision three Terms ago in Lau v. NicholsSearch
-
reflect common stereotypes concerning the potentialities of pregnant women, see, e.g., Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court General Elec. Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
General Electric Co. v. GilbertSearch
-
and Frontiero v. RichardsonSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial