10 Fair empl.prac.cas. 404, 9 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9865 Henry Lee Rogers, Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. International Paper Company, Appellees-Cross-Appellants’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

51 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions

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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “". . . are not to be condemned as unlawful per se, for in all fairness to applicants and employers alike, decisions about . . . promotion . . . cannot realistically be made using objective standards alone."”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thompson v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. · Peltier v. City of Fargo

2. ““In analyzing the legitimacy of testing devices as prerequisites to employment, several principles are significant. In Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, 401 U.S. at 431 , 91 S.Ct. at 853 , the Supreme Court held that employment practices which ‘[operate] to exclude Negroes [and] cannot be shown to be related to job performance’ were ‘artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment’ and therefore were prohibited. The Court also held that ‘Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any given requirement [has] a manifest relationship to the employment in question.’ id. at 432 , 91 S.Ct..at 854, and that the EEOC guidelines on Employer Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 1607 , expressed the will of Congress and were thus a measure relevant to demonstrating manifest relationship to employment. Griggs, supra, at 434 , 91 S.Ct. 10 . That burden, however, does not shift to the employer until the plaintiff has shown a discriminatory effect of the challenged employment requirement. Id. at 431, 91 S. Ct. 10 ; Gilmore v. Kansas City Terminal Ry., supra, 509 F.2d at 52-53 ; United States v. Georgia Power Co., 474 F.2d 906, 912 (5th Cir. 1973); Moody v. Albermarle Paper Co., 474 F.2d 134 , 138 (4th Cir. 1973); Chance v. Board of Examiners, 458 F.2d 1167, 1176 (2d Cir. 1972). Yet such a showing of discriminatory impact may be prima facie extablished by statistical data. Gilmore v. Kansas City Terminal Ry., supra, 509 F.2d at 52 (cases therein cited).” Rogers ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peltier v. City of Fargo

3. ““29 CFR 1607.13 Other selection techniques. Selection techniques other than tests, as defined in § 1607.2, may be improperly used so as to have the effect of discriminating against minority groups. Such techniques include, but are not restricted to, unscored or casual interviews and unscored application forms. Where there are data suggesting employment discrimination, the person may be called upon to present evidence concerning the validity of his unscored procedures as well as of any tests which may be used, the evidence of validity being of the same types referred to in §§ 1607.4 and 1607.5. Data suggesting the possibility of discrimination exists, for example, when there are differential rates of applicant rejection from various minority and non-minority or sex groups for the same job or group of jobs or when there are disproportionate representation of minority and nonminority or sex groups among present employees in different types of jobs. If the person is unable or unwilling to perform such validation studies, he has the option of adjusting employment procedures so as to eliminate the conditions suggestive of employment discrimination.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peltier v. City of Fargo