17 Fair empl.prac.cas. 815, 16 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8332 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company Locals 304 and 320, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, and Locals 304 and 320, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees, Equal Employment Advisory Council, Amicus Curiae’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The commission also asserts that the company discriminates in its promotion policies governing positions that are excepted from the [] seniority plan. Most of these jobs require specialized abilities or a specific technical background and many carry supervisory responsibilities. Openings for these jobs are posted for bidding by all employees, and the railroad may select the applicant it considers best qualified. Prior to 1967, all 76 excepted positions were held by white employees. Of the 51 positions still in existence in 1976, only one was held by a black employee. The commission’s proof disclosed only seven vacancies during the time pertinent to this suit. One was filled by a black employee. The statistical evidence concerning appointments to these excepted positions since the enactment of Title VII reveals that the company filled 14% of the vacancies with the promotion of a single black employee. In the absence of data concerning the number of qualified black persons in the labor pool, the commission’s evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination against black employees as a class, (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 456 F. Supp. 756 - Lee v. City of Richmond

2. “In support of the commission’s claim for class relief, however, a BRAC official testified that he knew of a black employee who “could have been awarded” an excepted position but was not. Although we hold that there is no entitlement to class relief, on remand the facts underlying this testimony should be explored to determine whether an individual claim exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.