green
Positive treatment
published
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Cited for
At page 1352 Granting motion to withdraw rehearing petition7 citing casesruling that "strict scrutiny is generally inapplicable" to outreach efforts that target one race
- Berkley v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 881 (Fed. Cir. 2002).published The cases that the court speculated would have helped the Baker panel in its analysis are: Hayden v. Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir.1999); Allen v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 164 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir.1999), vacated by joint mot. of the parties,…
- George A. Williams v. Cons. City of Jacksonville, 381 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2003).published In that regard, he argues that our decision in Allen v. Alabama State Board of Education, 164 F.3d 1347, 1352-53 (11th Cir.1999), vacated on other grounds by 216 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.2000), which he interprets as finding that race-conscious…
- Williams v. Consol. City of Jacksonville, 341 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2003).published In that regard, he argues that our decision in Allen v. Alabama State Board of Education, 164 F.3d 1347, 1352-53 (11th Cir.1999), vacated on other grounds by 216 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.2000), which he interprets as finding that race-conscious…
- Barbera v. Metro-Dade Cnty. Fire Dep't, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2000).published If a mere showing that an employer considered, and sought to limit, the adverse impact of testing procedures on minorities and/or women amounted to a discriminatory motive, efforts to remedy past discrimination against minorities and women…
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. & Eatherly Constr. Co. v. City of White House, 191 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 1999).published(ruling that "strict scrutiny is generally inapplicable" to outreach efforts that target one race)
- Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. City of White House, 191 F.3d 675 (6th Cir. 1999).published(ruling that “strict scrutiny is generally inapplicable” to outreach efforts that target one race)
- Honadle v. Univ. of Vermont & State Agric. Coll., 56 F. Supp. 2d 419 (D. Vt. 1999).published(racially conscious outreach efforts to broaden applicant pool not subject to strict scrutiny)
At page 1350 Establishing standards for terminating consent decrees4 citing cases
- Chisom v. State of Louisiana, No. 22-30320 (5th Cir. Oct. 25, 2023).publishedFor example, in City of Boerne and in Janek, we endorsed a more “flexible standard [such as in Dowell]” for evaluating motions to modify or dissolve under the first clause of Rule 60(b)(5). 57 Moreover, in Allen, we discussed the applicabi…
- R.C. ex rel. Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Prog. v. Walley, 390 F. Supp. 2d 1030 (M.D. Ala. 2005).published To terminate a consent decree, “[t]he party seeking termination of the decree must show that the basic purposes of the decree have been fully achieved and that there is no significant likelihood of recurring violations of federal law once…
- Johnson v. State of FL, 348 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir. 2003).publishedThe court decided that the proper legal framework for analyzing a motion to vacate a consent decree was set forth in United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497, 1508 (11th Cir.1993), and Allen v. Alabama State Board of Education, 164 F.3d…
At page 1353 Ensuring selection processes avoid discriminatory impact3 citing casesnoting that such scrutiny “would imperil Title VII, which requires covered employers to ensure that their selection processes do not result in unjustifiable discriminatory impact on African-American candidates
- Berkley v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 361 (Fed. Cl. 2000).published See Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 164 F.3d 1347 , 1352 n. 2 (11th Cir.1999), vacated by joint mot. of the parties, 216 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir.2000) (citing Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, 154 F.3d 487, 492 (D.C.Cir.) (focusing o…
- Barbera v. Metro-Dade Cnty. Fire Dep't, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Fla. 2000).published (noting that such scrutiny “would imperil Title VII, which requires covered employers to ensure that their selection processes do not result in unjustifiable discriminatory impact on African-American candidates)
- William Hayden v. Cnty. of Nassau, 180 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 1999).publishedCf. Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 164 F.3d 1347, 1353 (11th Cir.1999) *50 (affirming' consent decree requiring that school board develop an exam that minimizes racially disparate impact, and stating that “nothing in Adarand requires…
At page 1349 cited at this page1 citing case
- Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 190 F.R.D. 602 (M.D. Ala. 2000).published Most importantly, the decree required the Board, in developing new tests, to follow what is known as the ‘Golden Rule’ methodology and provided for the creation of an independent monitoring panel to oversee the test development process.” A…
Other citing cases
- MD/DC/DE Broadcasters Ass'n v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n, 236 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2001).published
- MD DC DE Bcastr Assn v. FCC, 253 F.3d 732 (D.C. Cir. 2001).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Allen
v.
Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
v.
Alabama State Bd. of Educ.
97-6808.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 11, 1999.
Published opinion
Cited by 8 opinions | Published
Margaret T. ALLEN, Yolanda F. Lamar, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
The ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Fob James, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-6808.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
June 30, 2000.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. 81-00697-CV-T-N);
[*~1347–1349]v.
The ALABAMA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Fob James, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 97-6808.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
June 30, 2000.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. 81-00697-CV-T-N);
Myron H. Thompson, Judge.
Before BIRCH and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and ALAIMO, Senior District Judge.*
[*~1348–1350]BY THE COURT:
The parties' "Motion to Withdraw Rehearing Petition...," construed as a joint motion to withdraw the rehearing petition, to vacate this Court's published opinion, and to remand this matter to District Court to resolve all issues relating to attorneys' fees, is GRANTED.
[*~1352–1354]*
The Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, Senior U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia, sitting by designation.