disparate-treatment

• “If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability.”

  Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “Allowing employers to violate the disparate-treatment prohibi-tion based on a mere good-faith fear of disparate-impact liability would encourage race-based action at the slightest hint of disparate impact.”

  VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Print » Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “The same interests are at work in the interplay between the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions of Title VII.”

  VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Print » Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “Discarding the test results was impermissible under Title VII, and summary judgment is appropriate for petitioners on their disparate-treatment claim.”

  VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Print » Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “Applying the strong-basis-in-evidence standard to Title VII gives effect to both the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions, allowing violations of one in the name of compliance with the other only in certain, narrow circumstances.”

  VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Print » Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “For the foregoing reasons, we adopt the strong-basis-in-evidence standard as a matter of statutory construction to resolve any conflict between the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions of Title VII.”

  VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Print » Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “The question, therefore, is whether the pur-pose to avoid disparate-impact liability excuses what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination.”

  VDARE.com: Blog Articles » Print » Supreme Court rules 5-4 for Frank Ricci / against Sonia Sotomayor

• “JP_: the opinion and the concurrence even more freely admits the tension created by allowing disparate-impact claims but forbidding remediation by disparate-treatment methods.”

  The Volokh Conspiracy » Ricci Reversed:

• “Our holding today clarifies how Title VII applies to resolve competing expectations under the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions.”

  The Volokh Conspiracy » Ricci as a Defeat for Business Interests Inflicted by “Pro-Business” Conservative Justices:

• “Our analysis begins with this premise," he said, "The City's actions would violate the disparate-treatment prohibition of Title VII absent some valid defense" not because its motive was racial favoritism but just because it acted to avoid a result that made no members of one racial group eligible for promotion.”

  Justice Sotomayor: The Unjust Hearings

Show 10 more examples...