Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry’s Empirical Analysis
186 F.3d 110 · 1999
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad (2001), Montrose Medical Group Participating Savings Plan v. Bulger (2001)
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Griggs v. Duke Power Co. · Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Castaneda v. Partida · Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (4/5) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded by Federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact. Smaller differences in selection rate may nevertheless constitute adverse impact, where they are significant in both statistical and practical terms ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Because statistical analysis, by its very nature, can never scientifically prove discrimination, a disparate impact plaintiff need not prove causation to a scientific degree of certainty. Accordingly, this Court has held that a plaintiff■ may establish a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination by proffering statistical evidence which reveals a disparity substantial enough to raise an inference of causation. That is, a plaintiffs statistical evidence must reflect a disparity so great that it cannot be accounted for by chance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In order to prevail on a disparate impact claim, a plaintiff must initially establish a prima facie case of discrimination. A plaintiff makes such a showing by first pointing out the specific employment practice it is challenging and then demonstrating that the challenged employment practice caused a significant disparate impact on a protected group. A plaintiff may rely solely on statistical evidence to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.