Merged_SHRM_SCP_Legal_Cases_Summary 2 Flashcards
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 1971
This landmark Supreme Court case established the principle of ‘disparate impact’ in employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It held that Duke Power Company’s requirement for high school diplomas and aptitude tests which were not shown to be job-related disproportionately excluded African American employees thus constituting racial discrimination.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green 1973
This case established a significant legal framework for proving racial discrimination in employment under Title VII when direct evidence is lacking. The Court provided a burden-shifting formula: the employee must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination then the employer must articulate a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its actions after which the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to prove that the employer’s reasons were a pretext for discrimination.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson 1986
This pivotal case recognized sexual harassment as a violation of Title VII. The Supreme Court held that a claim of ‘hostile work environment’ harassment can be based on unwelcome sexual advances and behavior in the workplace and that employers could be liable for the harassment by their employees.
Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth 1998
The Court established a framework for employer liability in cases of supervisor harassment without tangible employment action. It held that an employer is subject to vicarious liability for an employee’s unlawful harassment but the employer can raise an affirmative defense by showing it exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct harassing behavior.
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton 1998
In this case the Supreme Court held that an employer can be held liable for hostile work environment harassment by a supervisor over an employee. The Court established the principle that employers are responsible for the actions of their supervisory employees but they can avoid liability if they can prove that they took reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the harassing behavior.
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. 2007
This case addressed gender pay discrimination under Title VII. The Supreme Court ruled that a charge of pay discrimination must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory pay decision. However this led to the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 which reset the 180-day charge filing period with each discriminatory paycheck received.
Young v. United Parcel Service 2015
This case addressed the issue of pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The Supreme Court held that under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act an employer must provide the same accommodations to pregnant employees as it does to other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.
Vance v. Ball State University 2013
The Supreme Court clarified who qualifies as a ‘supervisor’ in a workplace harassment case under Title VII. The Court held that an employee is a ‘supervisor’ if they are empowered by the employer to take tangible employment actions against the victim thus affecting the scope of employer liability in harassment cases.
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar 2013
This case significantly raised the standard of proof in retaliation claims under Title VII. The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must prove that retaliation was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse action not just one motivating factor.
Ricci v. DeStefano 2009
This case dealt with issues of race discrimination and reverse discrimination under Title VII. The Supreme Court ruled that the City of New Haven’s decision to invalidate a promotional exam for firefighters because no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted was an act of illegal race-based discrimination.
Ricci v. DeStefano 2009
This case dealt with issues of race discrimination and reverse discrimination under Title VII. The Supreme Court ruled that the City of New Haven’s decision to invalidate a promotional exam for firefighters because no African-Americans scored high enough to be promoted was an act of illegal race-based discrimination.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services Inc. 1998
This Supreme Court case established that Title VII’s protection against workplace discrimination includes same-sex harassment. The Court held that the statute’s protection against sexual harassment is not limited to harassment between different sexes thus recognizing that harassment in the workplace can occur between individuals of the same sex.
Thompson v. North American Stainless LP 2011
This case expanded the scope of Title VII’s anti-retaliation protections. The Supreme Court held that an employee who was fired in response to his fiancee’s complaint of discrimination at the same company could sue for retaliation under Title VII recognizing third-party retaliation claims.
Staub v. Proctor Hospital 2011
The Supreme Court in this case established the ‘cat’s paw’ theory of liability in employment discrimination. The Court held that an employer can be held liable for employment discrimination based on the biased intent of an employee who influenced but did not make the ultimate employment decision.
Smith v. City of Jackson 2005
This case is significant for upholding the validity of disparate impact claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The Supreme Court held that policies that disproportionately affect older workers can be challenged under ADEA even if there is no intent to discriminate.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. 1971
This landmark case addressed gender discrimination under Title VII. The Supreme Court ruled that the employer’s policy of not hiring mothers with young children while hiring fathers with young children was discriminatory establishing important principles regarding gender-based discrimination.
Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia 2020
A landmark Supreme Court decision this case extended Title VII protections to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court held that firing individuals for being gay or transgender violates Title VII’s prohibitions against employment discrimination based on sex.
ADEA Cases (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) Various Dates
Cases under the ADEA address issues of age discrimination in employment. These cases have shaped the understanding of what constitutes age discrimination and have clarified employer responsibilities and employee rights regarding age-related employment practices.
ADA Cases (Americans with Disabilities Act) Various Dates
ADA cases deal with disability discrimination in the workplace focusing on the requirement for reasonable accommodations and defining what constitutes a disability. These cases have been pivotal in ensuring that employees with disabilities are provided equal opportunities and are protected from discrimination.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act Cases Various Dates
Cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act cover a broad range of issues related to employment discrimination based on race color religion sex and national origin. These landmark cases have defined and expanded the scope of employment rights and employer responsibilities under federal anti-discrimination law.
