Differentiate - Judgment Search Results

Toll Vs. Moreno

Court: US Supreme Court

..... the university of maryland to grant in state status for admission tuition and charge differential purposes to united states citizens and to immigrant aliens lawfully admitted for permanent ..... preventing disparate treatment among categories of nonimmigrants with respect to admissions tuition and charge differentials id at 173a 174a following the maryland court of appeals decision the case returned .....

Pullman-standard Vs. Swint

Court: US Supreme Court

..... however is specifically precluded by 703 h in title vii cases challenging seniority systems differentials among employees that result from a seniority system are not unlawful employment practices ..... to be concentrated in less desirable positions the district court concluded however that this differential impact was irrelevant in determining whether the seniority system operated neutrally the court of .....

Vikas Enterprises and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and anr.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1982All236

..... from others who are left out of the group 2 such differentiation must have a rational relation to the object sought to be ..... supreme court we are however firstly of the view that the differentiation does not have any rational relation to the object sought to ..... the aforesaid order there is in our opinion no nexus between the differentiation which is the basis of the classification and the object of .....

Washington Vs. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1

Court: US Supreme Court

..... hands by placing power over desegregative busing at the state level the initiative thus differentiates between the treatment of problems involving racial matters and that afforded other problems in ..... by placing power over desegregative busing at the state level then initiative 350 plainly differentiates between the treatment of problems involving racial matters and that afforded other problems in .....

City of Port Arthur Vs. United States

Court: US Supreme Court

..... to rely on two factors for its conclusion a slight differential between the percentage of black seats and the percentage of ..... black voting age population and a larger differential between the percentage of black seats and the percentage of ..... 19 1976 marshall j dissenting approving representation voting age population differential of 6 moreover the court s conclusion that the 4 .....

Rogers Vs. Lodge

Court: US Supreme Court

..... s at 456 u s 287 the court held that the issue of whether the differential impact of a seniority system resulted from an intent to discriminate on racial grounds is ..... case here footnote 5 purposeful racial discrimination invokes the strictest scrutiny of adverse differential treatment absent such purpose differential impact is subject only to the test of rationality washington v davis 426 .....

Plyler Vs. Doe

Court: US Supreme Court

..... when faced with an equal protection challenge respecting a state s differential treatment of aliens the courts must be attentive to congressional ..... power might well affect the state s prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular class of aliens but we are ..... its finite resources a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons page 457 u s 244 who are lawfully .....

American Tobacco Co. Vs. Patterson

Court: US Supreme Court

..... disparate impact of a bona fide seniority system even if the differential treatment is the result of pre act racially discriminatory employment ..... unlawful employment practice under this subchapter for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of ..... to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of section 206 d of .....

G. D. Searle and Co. Vs. Cohn

Court: US Supreme Court

..... requires no such proof thus the availability of this alternative defense neither eliminates the differential treatment nor provides a justification for it the defense merely lessens its adverse ..... of limitations because there is a rational basis for some differential treatment does it automatically follow that any differential treatment is constitutionally permissible i think not in my view .....

Senthilve and ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1983Mad316; (1983)2MLJ368

..... must be fulfilled namely 1 that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differential which distinguished persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of ..... and promote social justice in accordance with the directive principles and there was an intelligible differentiate between the retail dealers who were nothing but traders and consumer co operative societies .....