




is
ar stu
ed d
vi y re
aC s
o
ou urc
rs e
eH w
er as
o.
co
m

Lilly Ledbeter Act
o Any charge filed within 300 days of any action affected by discrimination is timely
o Each paycheck that contains discriminatory compensation is a separate violation regardless
of when discrimination began; 300 days renewed each time she was paid
o Claimed wasn’t promoted at Good Year Tire because she is Black
McDonnell-Douglas Crop. v. Green
o Aerospace and aircraft manufacturer; employee filed suit under Title VII claiming employer
refused to rehire him as an aircraft mechanic b/c of his race and involvement in Civil Rights
Movement protest
o Disparate treatment
1. Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Case
 Member of protected group
 Qualified for a position sought
 Rejected
 Employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications
2. Defendant’s articulated reason (no burden of persuasion)
3. Plaintiff’s ultimate burden to prove discrimination (burden of persuasion)
-Pretext, Credibility, Statistics
UAW v. Johnson Controls
o Potentially fertile and pregnant women couldn’t work in certain jobs with lead exposure
o SC rules against company, Title VII
Griggs v. Duke Power
o HS education requirement- didn’t show relationship to successful performance on the job
o Black applicants disqualified at a higher rate with HS and test requirement
o Jobs in question were formerly filled by Whites, prior to CRA company openly discriminated
Blacks
o Adverse Impact; impact of neutral job policies
sh

Heart of Atlanta Model v. United States
o Refused to accept Blacks and charged with violating Title VII
o Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents in commerce
Katzenbach v. McClung
o BBQ restaurant only provided take-out service to Blacks; ketchup packets came from outside
of the stateCongress has authority to regulate local intrastate activities if the activities
affect interstate commerce in the aggregate
o Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl.3
Estrada v. FedEx Ground
o FedEx tried to label delivery drivers as independent contracts- FedEx lost
o Company controls dress code, tools, benefits paid, bossed around my managers
o Control over driver’s performance in details; test of control
o Court says attorney’s fee award cannot stand; further proceedings to determine amount
which drivers are entitled to for out-of-pocket expenses, and amounts due for their work
accident insurance
East Line & Red River R.R. Co. v. Scot
Th

This study source was downloaded by 100000792571443 from CourseHero.com on 11-30-2021 12:10:13 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/18177383/Test-1-Cases/







is
ar stu
ed d
vi y re
aC s
o
ou urc
rs e
eH w
er as
o.
co
m

sh

Ricci v. DeStefano
o non-minority firefighters challenge decision that ignored test for promotion because no
Black firefighters passed; city violated Title VII-didn’t’ have strong enough evidence that test
had disparate impact against minorities
Jones v. Robinson Property Group
o Jones, Black certified poker dealer in Mississippi
o RPG wouldn’t permanently hire Jones- Jones files charge of discrimination with EEOC
o Jones failed to make prima facie and no direct evidence but on review 5th circuit says
witness statements were credible and direct evidence of discrimination
McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation
o 3 employees steel cargo card- 2 White and 1 Black; company fires Whites but not Black for
fear of race discrimination
o Violates Title VII, no such thing as reverse discrimination
Phongsavane v. Poter
o Asian employee asserts race discrimination after her overtime hours are cut; has no direct
evidence or comparative evidence
o Case dismissed; subjective evidence is never enough to establish discrimination in court
Vaughn v. Edel
o Benign neglect; “hands off” discrimination
o Employer backs off legitimate criticism after employee raises claims of racism
o Employee continues to underperform and is laid off; she sues for race discrimination saying
nobody told her performance could lead to job loss
o She wins punitive damages
Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc.
o Employer strict no beard policy; adverse impact on Black men who suffer from skin condition
o Gender neutral policy but adverse impact on Black men
Walker v. Secretary of the Treasury
o Light skin tones Black employee brings claim for Title VII discrimination against darker skin
toned Black supervisor
o Color discrimination; supervisor’s comments prove direct evidence
Paterson v. McLean Credit Union
o USSC damages under Section 1981 claims; addressed failure to promote rather than hiring or
discharge
o 1981 established only at first for failure to hire, when amended it can now cover any kind of
employment discrimination
o Racial harassment is not actionable under 1981
Wedow v. City of Kansas City
o Gender discrimination; female firefighters not given appropriate uniforms, showers
o Females were adversely affected because of their sex
Dothard v. Rawlinson
o Adverse impact, gender; female applies to prison guard position but rejected because can’t
meet requirements
o Defendant loses because didn’t prove business necessity to justify requirement
Th

This study source was downloaded by 100000792571443 from CourseHero.com on 11-30-2021 12:10:13 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/18177383/Test-1-Cases/






sh
Th

Lynch v. Freeman
o Female construction worker said job site has unsanitary conditions from portable toilet that
adversely impact women more
o Defendant couldn’t show business necessity of not having two sets of toilets
Phillips v. Martin Marieta Corp
o Sex plus discrimination; not hiring women with preschool aged children but did for men
UAW. Johnson Controls
o Sex plus discrimination; barred all women who are fertile or child bearing age from working
in area with lead exposure
o USSC says employer only enforces OSHA standards and women’s choice
PWC v. Hopkins
o Sex stereotyping; up for partner, comments from men were based on her gender
o If prohibited factor (gender) is a part of the employment determination it violates VII
o PWC won because Hopkins fails to meet the standard for proof
Jesperson v. Harrah’s
o Grooming standards; casino makeup rule for women;
o Lost because her attorney failed to put on evidence of the cost and time necessary
EEOC v. Women’s Workout World
o Gender as a BFOQ; men wanted to work there
o 3 things defendant has to prove for BFOQ; WWW didn’t prove all
Ross v. Double Diamond, Inc.
o Hostile work environment; court ruled in favor of employee
o Plaintiffs subjected to acts of offensive conduct over a two day period bc pervasive
Smith v. City of Salem, OH
o Firefighter undergoing sex reassignment discharged after showing up in wig; suspension
o Not protected by Title VII; sex stereotyping can use PWS as precedent
o ENDA pending in Congress
is
ar stu
ed d
vi y re
aC s
o
ou urc
rs e
eH w
er as
o.
co
m

This study source was downloaded by 100000792571443 from CourseHero.com on 11-30-2021 12:10:13 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/18177383/Test-1-Cases/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)