Citation network
Firefighters Vs. Stotts
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 12, 1984
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. 561 (1984) U.S. Supreme Court Firefighters v. StottsSearch
-
U.S. 561 (1984) Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. StottsSearch
-
the consent decree was permissible as a valid Title VII remedial order ignores not only the ruling in Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
unconvinced Page 467 U. S. 570 -- and it is the respondents' burden to convince us, County of Los Angeles v. DavisSearch
-
interest in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot notwithstanding the size of the dispute. Powell v. McCormackSearch
-
in force. These are matters of substance, it seems to us, and enough so to foreclose any claim of mootness. Cf. Franks v. BowmanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
United States v. ArmourSearch
-
however, permits the routine application of a seniority system absent proof of an intention to discriminate. Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
awarded competitive seniority and given their rightful place on the seniority roster. This much is clear from Franks v. BowmanSearch
-
Transportation Co., 424 U. S. 747 (1976), and Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
determining who is entitled to the job. Teamsters, supra, at 431 U. S. 371 -376. See also Ford Motor Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
Together with No. 82-229, Memphis Fire Department et al. v. StottsSearch
-
Franks v. BowmanSearch
-
system as it is by a state statute that provides economic benefits to striking employees. Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkleSearch
-
The present case is distinguishable from University of Texas v. CamenischSearch
-
the memorandum of understanding between the Union and the City is unenforceable under state law, citing Fulenwider v. FirefightersSearch
-
not from the parties' consent to the decree. Railway Employees v. WrightSearch
-
that relief for actual victims does not extend to bumping employees previously occupying jobs. See, e.g., Patterson v. AmericanSearch
-
United Papermakers and Paperworkers v. UnitedSearch
-
VII. We have previously recognized the authoritative nature of their interpretative memorandum. American Tobacco Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
those sections, relief is authorized only when there is proof or admission of intentional discrimination. Washington v. DavisSearch
-
General Building Contractors Assn. v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
The Court of Appeals also suggested that, under United States v. SwiftSearch
-
Court's usual practice of vacating the decision below and remanding with instructions to dismiss. See United States v. MunsingwearSearch
-
Ford Motor Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
the case is not moot. Page 467 U. S. 586 See, e.g., Franks v. BowmanSearch
-
on appeal, Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. SpanglerSearch
-
bona fide seniority systems, including those with discriminatory effects on minorities. See American Tobacco Co. v. PattersonSearch
-
provide retroactive relief that abrogates legitimate expectations of other employees and applicants. See Steelworkers v. WeberSearch
-
Pasadena City Bd. of Education v. SpanglerSearch
-
U. S. 588 future violations and to compensate identified victims of unlawful discrimination. See Teamsters v. UnitedSearch
-
Millken v. BradleySearch
-
University of California Regents v. BakkeSearch
-
balancing the competing interests of discriminatees, innocent employees, and the employer. See Ford Motor Co. v. EEOCSearch
-
precedent to employers' acceptance of, and unions' consent to, employment discrimination settlements. See Steelworkers v. WeberSearch
-
consent decree negotiations in 1980, and thereby furthering the statutory policy of voluntary settlement. See Carson v. AmericanSearch
-
Court effectively applies the criteria traditionally applicable to the review of preliminary injunctions. See Doran v. SalemSearch
-
This case is distinguishable from University of Texas v. CamenischSearch
-
W. R. Grace & Co. v. RubberSearch
-
does not, of course, countenance unlawful discrimination against existing employees or applicants. See McDonald v. SantaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial