Key Legislation for Talent Planning and Acquisition

Question 1

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971)

Answer 1

When an employer uses a neutral test or other selection device and then discovers it has a disproportionate impact on minorities or women, the test must be discarded unless it can be shown that it was required as a business necessity; this was the first Supreme Court recognition of adverse impact discrimination.

Question 2

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)

Answer 2

Employers may not have different policies for men and women with small children of similar age.

Question 3

McDonnell Douglas Crop v. Green (1973)

Answer 3

In a hiring case, the charging party only has to show (1) The charging party is a member of a Title VII protected group; (2) He or she applied and was qualified for the position sought; (3) The job was not offered to him or her; (4) the employer continued to seek applicants with similar qualifications. Then the employer must show a legitimate business reason why the complaining party was not hired. The employee has a final chance to prove the employer’s business reason was really pretext for discrimination. Establishes the criteria for disparate treatment discrimination.

Question 4

Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co. (1974)

Answer 4

Employers who require citizenship may violate Title VII if it results in discrimination based on national origin.

Question 5

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974)

Answer 5

Pay discrimination cases under the Equal Pay Act require the employee to prove that there is unequal pay based on sex for substantially equal work

Question 6

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks (1993)

Answer 6

Title VII complaints require the employee to show that discrimination was the reason for a negative employment action.

Question 7

Taxman v. Board of Education Piscataway (1993)

Answer 7

Race in an affirmative action plan cannot be used to trammel the rights of people in other races.

Question 8

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co. (1995)

Answer 8

“After-acquired” evidence collected following a negative employment action cannot protect an employer from liability under Title VII or ADEA, even if the conduct would have justified terminating the employee.

Question 9

Robinson v. Shell Oil (1997)

Answer 9

Title VII prohibition against retaliation protects former as well as current employees.

Question 10

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)

Answer 10

Distinguished between supervisor harassment that results in tangible employment action and that which does not. When harassment results in tangible employment action, the employer is liable. Employers may avoid liability if they have a legitimate written complaint policy, it is clearly communicated to employees, and it offers alternatives to the immediate supervisor as the point of contact for making a complaint.

Question 11

Albermarle Paper v. Moody (1975)

Answer 11

Requires employer to establish evidence that an employment test is related to the job content. Job analysis could be used to show that relationship, but performance evaluations of incumbents are specifically excluded.

Question 12

Washington v. Davis (1976)

Answer 12

When an employment test is challenged under constitutional law, intent to discriminate must be established. Under Title VII there is no need to show intent, just the impact of test results.

Question 13

McDonald v. Santa Fe Transportation (1976)

Answer 13

Title VII prohibits racial discrimination against Caucasians as well as African-Americans.

Question 14

Hazelwood School District v. U.S. (1977)

Answer 14

An employee can establish a prima facie case of class hiring discrimination through the presentation of statistical evidence by comparing the racial composition of an employer’s workforce with the racial composition of the relevant labor market.

An employee benefiting from a favorable employment action is not an element included in a prima facie violation. If the employee had suffered an unfavorable employment action, then a prima facie violation may have taken place. There are four elements which must be met for a prima violation to be valid:

The employee was engaged in a protected activity.
The employer knew or suspected that the employee was engaged in the protected activity.
The employee suffered an unfavorable employment action.
Sufficient circumstances existed to infer that a contributing factor to the unfavorable action was the employee’s participation in the protected activity.
Employees who believe that their employment status has been unlawfully affected by the filing of an allegation must file a written complaint including their name, the name of the company that allegedly retaliated against them, and prima facie evidence of the violation

Question 15

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977)

Answer 15

Under Title VII, employers must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious needs unless doing so would create an undue hardship for the employer.The Court defines hardship as anything more than de minimis cost.

Question 16

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Answer 16

Medical school admission set asides (16 of 100 seats) were illegal if they discriminate against Caucasians and there is no previous discrimination against minorities established.

Question 17

United Steelworkers v. Weber (1979)

Answer 17

Affirmative action plans are permissible if they are temporary and intended to “eliminate a manifest racial imbalance.”

Question 18

Connecticut v. Teal (1982)

Answer 18

An employer is liable for racial discrimination when any part of its selection process, such as an unvalidated examination or test, has a disparate impact even if the final result of the hiring process is racially balanced. In effect, the Court rejects the “bottom line defense” and makes clear that the fair employment laws protect the individual. Fair treatment to a group is not a defense to an individual claim of discrimination.

Question 19

EEOC v. Shell Oil Co. (1984)

Answer 19

The Supreme Court affirmed authority of EEOC Commissioners to initiate charges of discrimination through “Commissioner Charges”

Question 20

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986)

Answer 20

Defined “Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment” as a form of sex discrimination under Title VII. Further defined it as “unwelcome” advances of a sexual nature.Victim’s failure to use employer’s complaint process does not insulate the employer from liability.

Question 21

Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency (1987)

Answer 21

Employer was justified in hiring a woman who scored 2 points less than a man because it had an affirmative action plan that was temporary, flexible, and designed to correct an imbalance of white males in the workforce.

Question 22

School of Board of Nassau v Arline (1987)

Answer 22

A person with a contagious disease is covered by the Rehabilitation Act if they otherwise meet the definitions of “handicapped individual:’

Question 23

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust (1988)

Answer 23

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court declared that disparate impact analysis can be applied to subjective or discretionary selection practices.

Question 24

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Company (1989)

Answer 24

Affirmative action programs can only be maintained by showing that the programs aim to eliminate the effects of past discrimination

Question 25

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)

Answer 25

This decision relieved employers of liability if they would have made the same decision even if there had been no discrimination. Congress overturned the ruling providing that employers continue to have liability for injunctive relief, attorney fees, and costs even if they would have made the same decision in the absence of illegal discrimination.

Question 26

Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio (1989)

Answer 26

This decision made it more difficult for employees to prevail in employment discrimination cases. It was effectively overturned by Congress when it passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Question 27

Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc. (1993)

Answer 27

In a sexual harassment complaint, the employee does not have to prove concrete psychological harm to establish a Title VII violation.

Question 28

O’Conner v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. (1996)

Answer 28

To show unlawful discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, a discharged employee does not have to show that he or she was replaced by someone outside the protected age group (that is under age 40).

Question 29

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Service, Inc. (1998)

Answer 29

Same-gender harassment is actionable under Title VII

Question 30

Bragdon v. Abbot (1998)

Answer 30

An individual with asymptomatic HIV is an individual with a disability and therefore is protected by the ADA. Reproduction is a major life activity under the statute

Question 31

Kolstad v. American Dental Association (1999)

Answer 31

Title VII punitive damages are limited to cases in which the employer has engaged in intentional discrimination and has done so “with malice or with reckless indifference…”

Question 32

Gibson v. West (1999)

Answer 32

Endorses EEOC’s position that it has the legal authority to require federal agencies to pay compensatory damages when EEOC has ruled during the administrative process that the federal agency has unlawfully discriminated in violation of Title VII.