Section 703(H) Of Title Vii

26 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Freeman v. Motor Convoy, Inc.
  700 F.2d 1339· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-21 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings on class certification, the applicability of Section 703(h) to seniority systems and Section 1981 claims, the requirement of intent for Section 1981 claims, and the denial of certain equitable relief, while remanding for further pro
• Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
  420 F.2d 1225· 4th Cir.· 1970-01-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not preclude relief for the present and continuing effects of past discrimination, and that while educational and testing requirements may be valid if they serve a genuine business purpose, they cannot be used to
• Patterson v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  634 F.2d 744· 4th Cir.· 1980-11-18 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the employer failed to rebut the plaintiffs' prima facie case of discrimination because they did not demonstrate that supervisory positions required special qualifications not commonly possessed or readily acquired, and the statistical evidence presented was i
• United States v. Ga. Power Co.
  634 F.2d 929· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-22 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a seniority system's modification based on the Supreme Court's Teamsters decision was improper because the system was not bona fide and thus not protected by Teamsters. The district court erred in modifying its prior decree.
• Patterson v. The Am. Tobacco Co.
  586 F.2d 300· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States requires further proceedings regarding the bona fides of the employer's seniority system, necessitating remand for specific findings.
• Watkins v. Foster
  516 F.2d 41· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 24×
  The use of a bona fide, facially neutral employment seniority system for layoff and recall does not violate Title VII or § 1981, even if it perpetuates the effects of past discrimination, provided the affected employees have not themselves been victims of prior discrimination.
• Wattleton v. The Int'l Bhd. OF Boiler Makers
  686 F.2d 586· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-16 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that the union's seniority system was not bona fide under Title VII because it was negotiated and maintained with the intent and effect of discriminating against Negro employees.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. McCALL Printing Corp.
  633 F.2d 1232· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 20×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because the EEOC presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the company's seniority system was maintained in a discriminatory manner.
• Deveraux v. Geary
  765 F.2d 268· 1st Cir.· 1985-06-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Firefighters Local No. 1784 v. Stotts does not invalidate the Culbreath consent decree, and therefore the plaintiffs' attempt to intervene and modify the decree was untimely.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Safeway Stores
  714 F.2d 567· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-16 ·cited 12×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce Title VII conciliation agreements, and such agreements can be enforced without an independent finding of discrimination, but union objections to seniority provisions require union participation in the underlying discrimination adjudicat
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Ball Corp.
  661 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1981-09-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that statistical evidence, buttressed by anecdotal proof of discouraged applications, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment regarding promotions and transfers, reversing the district court's dismissal. However, the court affirmed the
• White v. Colgan Elec. Co., Inc.
  781 F.2d 1214· 6th Cir.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims litigated in a prior class action were barred by res judicata, and that the employer's layoff decision was legitimate under its collective bargaining agreement, rebutting the discrimination claim.
• Firefighters Inc. FOR Racial Equal. v. Cardenas
  731 F.2d 664· 10th Cir.· 1984-04-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court applied an erroneous legal standard by failing to properly distinguish between disparate treatment and disparate impact claims and by not determining if the seniority system was bona fide under Title VII.
• United States v. Ga. Power Co.
  695 F.2d 890· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-17 ·cited 6×
  The court reinstated its prior judgment, holding that its previous determination of discriminatory intent was not inconsistent with Pullman-Standard v. Swint and that the record permitted only one resolution of the factual issue.
• Gantlin v. W. Va. Pulp & Paper Co.
  734 F.2d 980· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-10 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that the seniority system was bona fide, holding that the district court's factual findings were not clearly erroneous.
• Taylor v. Mueller Co.
  660 F.2d 1116· 6th Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 4×
  A facially neutral, legitimate seniority system does not become unlawful under Title VII simply because it perpetuates pre-Act discrimination, provided it was not adopted with an intent to discriminate.
• N.A.A.C.P. v. Detroit Police Officers Ass'n (Dpoa)
  900 F.2d 903· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court erred in dismissing the case as moot, the plaintiffs' claims were ultimately barred by Title VII's Section 703(h) protection for bona fide seniority systems, even when brought under §§ 1981 and 1983.
• Harvey v. United Transp. Union
  878 F.2d 1235· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in its application of legal standards when determining the seniority system was bona fide, reversing and remanding for further consideration.
• United States & Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Trucking Mgmt., Inc.
  662 F.2d 36· D.C. Cir.· 1981-08-14 ·cited 2×
  A bona fide seniority system, lawful under Title VII, cannot be deemed unlawful under Executive Order No. 11,246, as the Executive Order cannot override express congressional policy protecting such systems.
• Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Local Unions 327
  542 F.2d 8· 3d Cir.· 1976-09-15 ·cited 1×
  The court held that while some prior rulings remain consistent with Franks, others must be reconsidered in light of Franks' more restrictive interpretation of Title VII § 703(h) regarding seniority rights for victims of discrimination.
• Altman v. AT & T Techs., Inc.
  870 F.2d 386· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-01
  A collective bargaining agreement's seniority system, including ancillary rules that prioritize active employees over laid-off employees, is considered bona fide under Title VII, even if it has a disparate impact on a protected group.