Home > Articles > Professional Certifications

  • Print
  • + Share This
This chapter is from the book

Relevant Case Law

HR professionals must be well versed in key precedent-setting cases relating to EEO, as a subset of workforce planning and employment. The following summaries (presented in chronological order) describe the significance of some of those landmark cases.)

Griggs v. Duke Power, 1971

Key issue: Adverse impact.

Significance: Discrimination need not be deliberate or observable to be real. Rather, it can exist if a particular policy or practice has a statistically significant adverse impact on members of a protected class. This is true even when the same requirement applies to all employees or applicants, as was the situation in this case. When a particular requirement does have an impact on members of a protected class, the burden of proof rests with the employer to demonstrate that the requirement is, in fact, job related and consistent with business necessity.

McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 1973

Key issue: Disparate treatment/prima facie.

Significance: The initial burden of proof for establishing a prima facie (Latin for “at first view”) case of discrimination against an employer (or potential employer) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rests with the employee (or applicant), who must be able to establish four key elements:

  • The person is a member of a protected class.
  • The person applied for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants.
  • The person was rejected, despite being qualified for the position.
  • After this rejection, the employer continued to seek other applicants with similar qualifications.

After the employee establishes a prima facie case for disparate treatment, the burden of proof then shifts to the employer, who must provide a nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged race discrimination and was brought by individuals who were not minorities/people of color.

Albemarle Paper v. Moody, 1975

Key issue: Employment tests — job relatedness and validity of employment tests.

Significance: Any tests that are used as part of the hiring or promotional decision-making process must be job related. This applies to any instrument that is used as a “test,” even if that was not its original purpose. This case also established that employment tests must demonstrate predictive validity, consistent with the Uniform Guidelines for Employee Selection Procedures.

Washington v. Davis, 1976

Key issue: Employment tests and disparate impact.

Significance: A test that has an adverse impact on a protected class is still lawful as long as the test can be shown to be valid and job related.

Regents of California v. Bakke, 1978

Key issue: Affirmative action.

Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that although race could be a factor in college admission decisions, quotas could not be established.

Although this case was based on a college admissions program, its significance extended to workplace affirmative action programs.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged race discrimination and was brought by someone who was not a minority/person of color.

United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979

Key issue: Affirmative action.

Significance: Affirmative action plans that establish voluntary quotas that have been jointly agreed to by an organization as well as its collective bargaining unit do not constitute race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they are designed to remedy past discrimination that has resulted in current underutilization.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged race discrimination and was brought by someone who was not a minority/person of color.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 1986

Key issue: Sexual harassment.

Significance: This was the first ruling to establish that sexual harassment (whether quid pro quo or hostile environment) constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In addition, the court ruled that it isn’t enough for an organization to have a policy prohibiting discrimination. Instead, the ruling stated, “Reasonable care requires effective communication of policies and training. The employer has the burden of proof.”

Johnson v. Santa Clara County Transportation Agency, 1987

Key issue: Affirmative action.

Significance: Gender can be used as a factor in the selection process if there is underrepresentation in a particular job classification, as long as the AAP does not set forth a quota.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged sex discrimination and was brought by a man.

Martin v. Wilks, 1988

Key issue: Affirmative action.

Significance: Current employees who are negatively affected by consent decrees that were established in an earlier time and that sought to resolve discrimination that was present in an earlier time may challenge the validity of such decrees.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged race discrimination and was brought by individuals who were not minorities/people of color.

Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 1990

Key issue: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

Significance: The Supreme Court ruled that Johnson Controls’ fetal protection policy constituted a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. As such, even rules that are well intentioned are unlawful if such rules result in discrimination on the basis of sex.

Harris v. Forklift Systems, 1993

Key issue: Sexual harassment.

Significance: The court clarified the standard relative to what constitutes a sexually hostile work environment: “This standard, which we reaffirm today, takes a middle path between making actionable any conduct that is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a tangible psychological injury. Conduct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment—an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive—is beyond Title VII’s purview. Likewise, if the victim does not subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive, the conduct has not actually altered the conditions of the victim’s employment, and there is no Title VII violation.”

Taxman v. Board of Education of Piscataway, 1993

Key issue: Affirmative action.

Significance: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that—in the absence of underrepresentation as demonstrated and documented through an affirmative action plan—organizations cannot take race into account when making decisions relative to who will be laid off and who will be retained. Doing so would constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged race discrimination and was brought by a person who was not a minority/person of color.

St. Mary’s Honor Center v. Hicks, 1993

Key issue: Burden of proof.

Significance: To ultimately prevail in an allegation of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the charging party (meaning, the employee who filed the charge) must go beyond a prima facie case and actually prove that the employer’s actual reasons for an employment action are, in fact, discriminatory.

McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publishing Co., 1995

Key issue: After-acquired evidence.

Significance: An employer will be held accountable for discriminatory employment actions even if it discovers evidence after taking the discriminatory employment action that would have led the employer to that same employment action for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” since it alleged race discrimination and was brought by someone who was not a minority/person of color.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998, and Ellerth v. Burlington Northern Industries, 1998

Key issue: Sexual harassment.

Significance: If an employee is subjected to a tangible adverse employment action because of a supervisor’s sexually harassing behavior, the employer is liable. The employer is also vicariously liable when its supervisors create a sexually hostile work environment, even if the employee is not subjected to an adverse employment action. This is true whether or not the employer itself was negligent or otherwise at fault. However, if the employee is not subjected to tangible adverse employment action, the employer may be able to raise as a defense that he acted reasonably to prevent or promptly correct any sexually harassing behavior and that the plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the employer’s preventive or corrective opportunities.

Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 1999

Key issue: Sex discrimination, by members of one sex against a person of the same sex.

Significance: Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination does include harassment of individuals by others who happen to be the same sex.

Kolstad v. American Dental Association, 1999

Key issue: Punitive damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Significance: Punitive damages can be awarded only when the employer has acted with malice and reckless indifference to the employee’s federally protected rights.

This subjective standard was considered to be easier to establish than the more objective standard that would be required if employees had to prove that the nature of the actual behavior to which they had been subjected reached a level in which it would be considered “egregious.”

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 2001

Key issue: Mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

Significance: The Supreme Court confirmed the legality of requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment and that such agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), with the exception of seamen and railway workers.

Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003

Context: Barbara Grutter was applying for admission to the University of Michigan Law School, and Jennifer Gratz was applying for the University of Michigan as an undergraduate student. Lee Bollinger was the president of the University of Michigan.

Key issue: Affirmative action.

Significance: Race can be taken into account as an admissions factor because it furthers the establishment of diversity—a “compelling state interest”—as long as the admissions process is “narrowly tailored” to achieve the objective of achieving a diverse student body.

Interestingly, Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor indicated that cases of this sort will likely be ruled differently at some point in the future: “Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

These cases fall under the category of “reverse discrimination” because they alleged race discrimination and were brought by people who were not minorities/people of color.

General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline, 2004

Key issue: Age discrimination (relative).

Significance: Younger employees (even if they are over the age of 40) cannot allege age discrimination because of the establishment of programs or decisions that favor older employees. As Justice David Souter wrote in the opening of his opinion, “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA or Act), 81 Stat. 602, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., forbids discriminatory preference for the young over the old. The question in this case is whether it also prohibits favoring the old over the young. We hold it does not.”

This case falls under the category of “reverse discrimination” because it alleged age discrimination and was brought by a person who was relatively younger.

Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009

Key issue: Disparate impact.

Significance: The Supreme Court confirmed that, “Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions.”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 2015

Key issue: The need for religious accommodation, when such need has not been explicitly communicated to the employer.

Significance: According to the Supreme Court, “motive and knowledge are separate concepts. An employer who has actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation does not violate Title VII by refusing to hire an applicant if avoiding that accommodation is not her motive. Conversely, an employer who acts with the motive of avoiding accommodation may violate Title VII even if he has no more than an unsubstantiated suspicion that accommodation would be needed.”

This case involved an applicant named Samantha Eluef. Eleuf, a practicing Muslim, wore a hijab to her interview, but did not specifically request a religious accommodation to wear it on a daily basis at work.

  • + Share This
  • 🔖 Save To Your Account

Pearson IT Certification Promotional Mailings & Special Offers

I would like to receive exclusive offers and hear about products from Pearson IT Certification and its family of brands. I can unsubscribe at any time.

Overview


Pearson Education, Inc., 221 River Street, Hoboken, New Jersey 07030, (Pearson) presents this site to provide information about Pearson IT Certification products and services that can be purchased through this site.

This privacy notice provides an overview of our commitment to privacy and describes how we collect, protect, use and share personal information collected through this site. Please note that other Pearson websites and online products and services have their own separate privacy policies.

Collection and Use of Information


To conduct business and deliver products and services, Pearson collects and uses personal information in several ways in connection with this site, including:

Questions and Inquiries

For inquiries and questions, we collect the inquiry or question, together with name, contact details (email address, phone number and mailing address) and any other additional information voluntarily submitted to us through a Contact Us form or an email. We use this information to address the inquiry and respond to the question.

Online Store

For orders and purchases placed through our online store on this site, we collect order details, name, institution name and address (if applicable), email address, phone number, shipping and billing addresses, credit/debit card information, shipping options and any instructions. We use this information to complete transactions, fulfill orders, communicate with individuals placing orders or visiting the online store, and for related purposes.

Surveys

Pearson may offer opportunities to provide feedback or participate in surveys, including surveys evaluating Pearson products, services or sites. Participation is voluntary. Pearson collects information requested in the survey questions and uses the information to evaluate, support, maintain and improve products, services or sites; develop new products and services; conduct educational research; and for other purposes specified in the survey.

Contests and Drawings

Occasionally, we may sponsor a contest or drawing. Participation is optional. Pearson collects name, contact information and other information specified on the entry form for the contest or drawing to conduct the contest or drawing. Pearson may collect additional personal information from the winners of a contest or drawing in order to award the prize and for tax reporting purposes, as required by law.

Newsletters

If you have elected to receive email newsletters or promotional mailings and special offers but want to unsubscribe, simply email information@informit.com.

Service Announcements

On rare occasions it is necessary to send out a strictly service related announcement. For instance, if our service is temporarily suspended for maintenance we might send users an email. Generally, users may not opt-out of these communications, though they can deactivate their account information. However, these communications are not promotional in nature.

Customer Service

We communicate with users on a regular basis to provide requested services and in regard to issues relating to their account we reply via email or phone in accordance with the users' wishes when a user submits their information through our Contact Us form.

Other Collection and Use of Information


Application and System Logs

Pearson automatically collects log data to help ensure the delivery, availability and security of this site. Log data may include technical information about how a user or visitor connected to this site, such as browser type, type of computer/device, operating system, internet service provider and IP address. We use this information for support purposes and to monitor the health of the site, identify problems, improve service, detect unauthorized access and fraudulent activity, prevent and respond to security incidents and appropriately scale computing resources.

Web Analytics

Pearson may use third party web trend analytical services, including Google Analytics, to collect visitor information, such as IP addresses, browser types, referring pages, pages visited and time spent on a particular site. While these analytical services collect and report information on an anonymous basis, they may use cookies to gather web trend information. The information gathered may enable Pearson (but not the third party web trend services) to link information with application and system log data. Pearson uses this information for system administration and to identify problems, improve service, detect unauthorized access and fraudulent activity, prevent and respond to security incidents, appropriately scale computing resources and otherwise support and deliver this site and its services.

Cookies and Related Technologies

This site uses cookies and similar technologies to personalize content, measure traffic patterns, control security, track use and access of information on this site, and provide interest-based messages and advertising. Users can manage and block the use of cookies through their browser. Disabling or blocking certain cookies may limit the functionality of this site.

Do Not Track

This site currently does not respond to Do Not Track signals.

Security


Pearson uses appropriate physical, administrative and technical security measures to protect personal information from unauthorized access, use and disclosure.

Children


This site is not directed to children under the age of 13.

Marketing


Pearson may send or direct marketing communications to users, provided that

  • Pearson will not use personal information collected or processed as a K-12 school service provider for the purpose of directed or targeted advertising.
  • Such marketing is consistent with applicable law and Pearson's legal obligations.
  • Pearson will not knowingly direct or send marketing communications to an individual who has expressed a preference not to receive marketing.
  • Where required by applicable law, express or implied consent to marketing exists and has not been withdrawn.

Pearson may provide personal information to a third party service provider on a restricted basis to provide marketing solely on behalf of Pearson or an affiliate or customer for whom Pearson is a service provider. Marketing preferences may be changed at any time.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information


If a user's personally identifiable information changes (such as your postal address or email address), we provide a way to correct or update that user's personal data provided to us. This can be done on the Account page. If a user no longer desires our service and desires to delete his or her account, please contact us at customer-service@informit.com and we will process the deletion of a user's account.

Choice/Opt-out


Users can always make an informed choice as to whether they should proceed with certain services offered by Adobe Press. If you choose to remove yourself from our mailing list(s) simply visit the following page and uncheck any communication you no longer want to receive: www.pearsonitcertification.com/u.aspx.

Sale of Personal Information


Pearson does not rent or sell personal information in exchange for any payment of money.

While Pearson does not sell personal information, as defined in Nevada law, Nevada residents may email a request for no sale of their personal information to NevadaDesignatedRequest@pearson.com.

Supplemental Privacy Statement for California Residents


California residents should read our Supplemental privacy statement for California residents in conjunction with this Privacy Notice. The Supplemental privacy statement for California residents explains Pearson's commitment to comply with California law and applies to personal information of California residents collected in connection with this site and the Services.

Sharing and Disclosure


Pearson may disclose personal information, as follows:

  • As required by law.
  • With the consent of the individual (or their parent, if the individual is a minor)
  • In response to a subpoena, court order or legal process, to the extent permitted or required by law
  • To protect the security and safety of individuals, data, assets and systems, consistent with applicable law
  • In connection the sale, joint venture or other transfer of some or all of its company or assets, subject to the provisions of this Privacy Notice
  • To investigate or address actual or suspected fraud or other illegal activities
  • To exercise its legal rights, including enforcement of the Terms of Use for this site or another contract
  • To affiliated Pearson companies and other companies and organizations who perform work for Pearson and are obligated to protect the privacy of personal information consistent with this Privacy Notice
  • To a school, organization, company or government agency, where Pearson collects or processes the personal information in a school setting or on behalf of such organization, company or government agency.

Links


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that we are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of each and every web site that collects Personal Information. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this web site.

Requests and Contact


Please contact us about this Privacy Notice or if you have any requests or questions relating to the privacy of your personal information.

Changes to this Privacy Notice


We may revise this Privacy Notice through an updated posting. We will identify the effective date of the revision in the posting. Often, updates are made to provide greater clarity or to comply with changes in regulatory requirements. If the updates involve material changes to the collection, protection, use or disclosure of Personal Information, Pearson will provide notice of the change through a conspicuous notice on this site or other appropriate way. Continued use of the site after the effective date of a posted revision evidences acceptance. Please contact us if you have questions or concerns about the Privacy Notice or any objection to any revisions.

Last Update: November 17, 2020