Jump to Navigation

Posts tagged "Disparate Impact"

Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, No. 15-3435 (3d Cir. Jan. 10, 2017)

The Third Circuit, declaring a split with several other courts, holds that an ADEA disparate-impact case may allege discrimination against a subset of the protected group, here employees 50 and over. Prior decisions had held that such claims could be based only on the entire protected group - age 40 and over - but the Third Circuit panel holds that "their reasoning relies primarily on policy arguments that we do not find persuasive."

Ernst v. City of Chicago, No. 14-3783 (7th Cir. Sept. 19, 2016)

It's rare for a federal court of appeals to toss a defense jury verdict in an employment-discrimination case, and rarer still for the panel to order entry of a judgment in favor of a plaintiff. Yet both things happened in yesterday's Seventh Circuit decision, which held that a group of female paramedic applicants proved they were unlawfully screened out of employment due to an unreliable physical-skills entrance examination.

Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds, No. 15-10602 (11th Cir. Nov. 30, 2015)

The Eleventh Circuit holds (2-1) that hiring guidelines that target employees a few years out of college, or that discourage hiring of employees with too much experience, may violate the ADEA if they have a disparate impact on hiring employees age 40 and over. The majority also holds that equitable tolling of the limitations period for filing an EEOC charge does not necessarily depend on concealment or fraud by the employer.

Howe v. City of Akron, No. 14-3352 (6th Cir. Sept. 17, 2015)

A long-running disparate impact case challenging promotions of firefighters to the ranks of Lieutenant and Captain is remanded by the Sixth Circuit for a third trial to award back pay, and the panel reassigns the case to a new judge for good measure. The panel has valuable things to say about how to calculate monetary make-whole relief. It also affirms injunctive relief, and appointment of a monitor, to purge the city's violation.

Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, No. 14-2843 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2015)

One of the challenges recently facing groups of employees hurt by discriminatory employment practices has been to persuade courts to allow the entire controversy to be decided in a single class action. Today, the Seventh Circuit issued a decision that helps break down some of the barriers to effective class certification, in a case involving a city school board's policy of placing schools on suspension - primarily affecting minority neighborhoods - and firing teaching staff.

Jones v. City of Boston, No. 12-2280 (1st Cir. May 7, 2014)

The First Circuit holds that ten African American police officers presented sufficient evidence to prove that police department drug testing, using hair samples, had a disparate impact on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII. The parties are remanded to the district court to determine, among other things, whether the use of hair samples is a reliable test, or generates too many false positives among black test subjects.

Tabor v. Hilti, Inc., No. 11-5131 (10th Cir. Jan. 15, 2013)

Two women sales representatives who were denied promotions by hardware giant Hilti get a renewed opportunity to prove at trial that they were denied promotions because of sex, thanks to a Tenth Circuit decision on Tuesday. Among other evidence in the record: the male manager evaluating one plaintiff allegedly told her that tools "are like guns for men" and using them is "almost like second nature."

McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, No. 11-3639 (7th Cir. Feb. 24, 2012)

For employers and their counsel who insist that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), is a silver bullet against Title VII discrimination class actions, today's decision in the McReynolds case was not good news. The Seventh Circuit sweeps past the employer's arguments and holds that the district court erred by not certifying a Rule 23 class action in a disparate-impact race discrimination case.

NAACP v. North Hudson Regional Fire & Rescue, No. 10-3965 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2011)

For the second time in three months, The Third Circuit confronts a New Jersey municipal residency requirement - challenged for disparate impact under Title VII - and once again rules in favor of the applicants. One twist in this case was that the residency requirement was, in part, arguably required by a consent decree. The panel rejects a Ricci defense.

The EEOC Provides Guidance on the "Reasonable Factor Other than Age" Defense to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

On November 16, 2011, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") approved, by a 3-2 vote, draft final regulations that provide guidance on the meaning of "the reasonable factor other than age" defense under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). These proposed regulations advance the purpose of the ADEA by forcing employers to think twice about whether their policies have an arbitrarily discriminatory effect on older workers.

subscribe to this blog's feed subscribe to this blog's feed

tell us about your case

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information
disclaimer.

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

close

Privacy Policy

facebook twitter linked in

our office locations

Outten & Golden LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor  
New York, NY 10017  
Phone: 212-245-1000
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
161 North Clark Street
Suite 1600
Chicago, Il 60601  
Phone: 312-809-7010
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-638-8800
Map and Directions

Outten & Golden LLP
601 Massachussetts Avenue NW
Second Floor West Suite 
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-847-4400
Map and Directions