Citation network
Connecticut Vs. Teal
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 21, 1982
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
-
U.S. 440 (1982) U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut v. TealSearch
-
U.S. 440 (1982) Connecticut v. TealSearch
-
petitioners. App. to Pet. for Cert. 18a. The court treated respondents' claim as one of disparate impact under Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Power Co., 401 U. S. 424 (1971), Albemarle Paper Co. Page 457 U. S. 445 v. MoodySearch
-
U. S. 405 (1975), and Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
a)(2). Respondents base their claim on our construction of this provision in Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
encountered by women and blacks, as well as other minorities. 401 U.S. at 401 U. S. 431 . See also Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
to such equality. Id. at 401 U. S. 429 -430. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
to be placed instead on the overall number of minority or female applicants actually hired or promoted. Thus, Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
as ineligible for employment. Id. at 433 U. S. 329 -330, and n. 12. Similarly, in Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
employer could avoid this burden. See 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 436 . See also New York Transit Authority v. BeazerSearch
-
Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U. S. 567 , 438 U. S. 580 (1978). See also Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 455 members of the applicant's race are already proportionately represented in the workforce. See Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
McDonald v. SantaSearch
-
because he favorably treats other members of the employees' group. We recognized in Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
Id. at 435 U. S. 708 . Similarly, in Phillips v. MartinSearch
-
Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
Although this language suggests that discrimination occurs only on an individual basis, in Griggs v. DukeSearch
-
cases are concerned with the protected group. This key distinction was explained in Furnco Construction Corp. v. WatersSearch
-
under Title VII that claims of employment discrimination because of race may arise in two different ways. Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
opportunity to show that there was no disparate impact. As the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit noted in EEOC v. GreyhoundSearch
-
impact cases do not even support the propositions for which they are cited. For example, the Court cites Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
The Court concedes that the other major cases on which it relies, Furnco, Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. ManhartSearch
-
U. S. 702 (1978), and Phillips v. MartinSearch
-
of minority members to be considered for or to qualify for jobs and promotions. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. BurdineSearch
-
s decision actually may result in employers' employing fewer minority members. As Judge Newman noted in Brown v. NewSearch
-
Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
See Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
of establishing a prima facie case that Title VII has been infringed. See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. BurdineSearch
-
selection process results in the rejection of a disproportionate number of members of a protected group. See Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
of Title VII on a disparate impact basis when there is no disparate impact at the bottom line. See, e.g., EEOC v. GreyhoundSearch
-
EEOC v. NavajoSearch
-
Friend v. LeidingerSearch
-
Rule v. InternationalSearch
-
Smith v. TroyanSearch
-
Williams v. CitySearch
-
Brown v. NewSearch
-
Lee v. CitySearch
-
The Court cites language from two other disparate impact cases. The Court notes that, in Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
-
was neither presented in the facts of the case nor addressed by the Court. Similarly, New York Transit Authority v. BeazerSearch
-
the probative value of statistical evidence varies with sample size in disparate impact cases. See, e.g., Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
Mayor of Philadelphia v. EducationalSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Connecticut v. TealSearch
-
and Dothard v. RawlinsonSearch
-
See Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial