Get This Book
Prices may vary. Links may earn us a commission and open external websites.
Publisher
Independently published
ISBN
ISBN-13: 9798361662524Synopsis
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss the elements of Title VII prima facie cases. Volume 2 of the casebook covers the Sixth through the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
* * *
"[T]o make a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII, the plaintiff[] must show that a facially neutral employment practice has a significantly discriminatory impact upon a group protected by Title VII." Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This showing consists of two parts: the plaintiff[] must demonstrate 1) a specific employment practice that 2) causes a significant discriminatory impact." Id. at 1145. The plaintiff must also establish that the challenged practice is either (a) not job related or (b) "[in]consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (2018). Even if the practice is job related and consistent with business necessity, though, a plaintiff may still prevail "by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer's legitimate needs." Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 578, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
Freyd v. University of Oregon, 990 F. 3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2021)
* * *
"[T]o make a prima facie case of disparate impact under Title VII, the plaintiff[] must show that a facially neutral employment practice has a significantly discriminatory impact upon a group protected by Title VII." Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). "This showing consists of two parts: the plaintiff[] must demonstrate 1) a specific employment practice that 2) causes a significant discriminatory impact." Id. at 1145. The plaintiff must also establish that the challenged practice is either (a) not job related or (b) "[in]consistent with business necessity." 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i) (2018). Even if the practice is job related and consistent with business necessity, though, a plaintiff may still prevail "by showing that the employer refuses to adopt an available alternative practice that has less disparate impact and serves the employer's legitimate needs." Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 578, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
Freyd v. University of Oregon, 990 F. 3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2021)
Dimensions
9 inches ร 1.22 inches ร 6 inches
1.98 pounds