Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Joint Apprenticeship Committee’s Empirical Analysis
895 F.2d 86 · 1990
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2011
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · Hazelwood School District v. United States · Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. · Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust · Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In doing so, we express no view as to the sufficiency of EEOC's statistics to establish the requisite disparities, or as to whether summary judgment is appropriate with respect to the issue of causation. . . . If it is determined that EEOC has advanced a prima facie case of disparate impact, the burden of production shifts to JAC to produce evidence rebutting the prima facie case. Thus, JAC would then bear the burden of showing that there are `legitimate nondiscriminatoryreasons' for the specific employment practice in question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“appears not to conform to the applicable legal standard”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“plaintiff does not make out a case of disparate impact simply by showing that, “at the bottom line,” there is a racial imbalance in the work force. As a general matter, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the application of a specific or particular employment practice that has created the disparate impact under attack. * * * * * * [E]ven if on remand respondents can show that non-whites are underrepresented in the at-issue jobs, ... this alone will not suffice to make out a case of disparate impact. Respondents will also have to demonstrate that the disparity they complain of is the result of one or more of the employment practices that they are attacking ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.