PHR court cases Exam Questions and Answers
Griggs v Duke Power - --adverse impact
-african american Griggs and 12 other AA employees of mechanical plant sued because of
the unfairness of the employment test
-McDonnell Douglas Group v Green - --disparate treatment/prima facia
-established 4 criteria for discrimination cases for employee to prove known as the prima
facia (at first glance)
1. ee applied for posted job
2. ee member of protected class
3. ee rejected, but was qualified
4. employer kept looking
-Washington v Davis - --disparate treatment
-employment tests that have a disparate impact are ok if they are valid and job related
-2 black men applied to the Washington, DC police department and felt that the verbal test
were discriminatory
-Albemarle Paper v Moody - --job relatedness and validity
-any test used for hiring or promotions must be job related and valid
-Regents of California v Bakke - --reverse discrimination
-race ok as factor in college admissions, but not quotas
-United Steelworkers v Weber - --reverse discrimination
-AAP plans that establish voluntary quota (meaning both union and employer agree) do
constitute race discrimination.
-it is in place to remedy past discrimination
-Johnson v Santa Clara Transportation Dept. - --reverse discrimination
-gender ok as factor, but not quotas
-Martin v Wilkes - --reverse discrimination
-ok to challenge the validity of past consent decrees that are still in place
-Taxman v Board of Edu Piscataway - --reverse discrimination
-race cannot be a factor for lay offs even if AAP is in place
-Gutter/Gratz v Bollinger - --reverse discrimination
-race can be a factor in college admissions to further diversity
-Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson - --first sexual harrassment case 1986
-employers are liable for supervisors actions (i.e. sexual harrassment acusation)
-you can't just have a sexual harassment policy, you must have "reasonable care" (training)
Griggs v Duke Power - --adverse impact
-african american Griggs and 12 other AA employees of mechanical plant sued because of
the unfairness of the employment test
-McDonnell Douglas Group v Green - --disparate treatment/prima facia
-established 4 criteria for discrimination cases for employee to prove known as the prima
facia (at first glance)
1. ee applied for posted job
2. ee member of protected class
3. ee rejected, but was qualified
4. employer kept looking
-Washington v Davis - --disparate treatment
-employment tests that have a disparate impact are ok if they are valid and job related
-2 black men applied to the Washington, DC police department and felt that the verbal test
were discriminatory
-Albemarle Paper v Moody - --job relatedness and validity
-any test used for hiring or promotions must be job related and valid
-Regents of California v Bakke - --reverse discrimination
-race ok as factor in college admissions, but not quotas
-United Steelworkers v Weber - --reverse discrimination
-AAP plans that establish voluntary quota (meaning both union and employer agree) do
constitute race discrimination.
-it is in place to remedy past discrimination
-Johnson v Santa Clara Transportation Dept. - --reverse discrimination
-gender ok as factor, but not quotas
-Martin v Wilkes - --reverse discrimination
-ok to challenge the validity of past consent decrees that are still in place
-Taxman v Board of Edu Piscataway - --reverse discrimination
-race cannot be a factor for lay offs even if AAP is in place
-Gutter/Gratz v Bollinger - --reverse discrimination
-race can be a factor in college admissions to further diversity
-Meritor Savings Bank v Vinson - --first sexual harrassment case 1986
-employers are liable for supervisors actions (i.e. sexual harrassment acusation)
-you can't just have a sexual harassment policy, you must have "reasonable care" (training)
