Ernestine KING, Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Appellee (1984)

But cf. King, 738 F.2d 255, 257 (8th Cir.1984).

The plaintiff still might be entitled to injunctive relief against future discrimination, see EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace, 813 F.2d 1539, 1544 (9th Cir.1987) (listing benefits of injunctive relief, including: (1) instructing employers to comply with federal law, (2) subjecting employers to the contempt power of the federal courts for future violations, and (3) reducing the chilling effect of employers’ alleged discrimination); King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255,…

This court has applied similar reasoning in an individual discrimination action, noting that, after a job applicant has proved unlawful discrimination, the employer is entitled to prove that the "job applicant would not have been hired anyway in order to limit the job applicant's relief." King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 257-58 (8th Cir.1984).

The plaintiff still might be entitled to injunctive relief against future discrimination, see EEOC v. Goodyear Aerospace, 813 F.2d 1539, 1544 (9th Cir. 1987) (listing benefits of injunctive relief, including: (1) instructing employers to comply with federal law, (2) subjecting employers to the contempt power of the federal courts for future violations, and (3) reducing the chilling effect of employers' alleged discrimination); King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255…

See Easley v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 758 F.2d 251 , 262 *711 (8th Cir.1985); King v. Trans World Airlines, 738 F.2d 255, 257-58 (8th Cir.1984).

For example, “an employer commits sex-plus discrimination if it treats men with children better than women with children—and this is true even if the employer does not treat women without children any worse than men without children (or, for that matter, any worse than men with children).” Johnston, 2009 WL 2900352 , at *8 (considering a sex- plus-parental-status claim under the MHRA); see also King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1984) (“[A]n empl…

For example, “an employer commits sex-plus discrimination if it treats men with children better than women with children—and this is true even if the employer does not treat women without children any worse than men without children (or, for that matter, any worse than men with children).” Johnston, 2009 WL 2900352 , at *8 (considering a sex- plus-parental-status claim under the MHRA); see also King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir. 1984) (“[A]n empl…

King v. Trans World Airlines, 738 F.2d 255, 258-259 (8th Cir.1984).

King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 257 (8th Cir.1984); Ostroff v. Employment Exch., Inc., 683 F.2d 302 , 304 (9th Cir.1982) (“When an employer summarily rejects an applicant without considering his or her qualifications, those qualifications are irrelevant to whether the Title VII plaintiff has raised a prima facie case of disparate treatment.”); Nanty v. Barrows Co., 660 F.2d 1327, 1332 (9th Cir.1981).

Id. at 259 (citations omitted); see also Barbano v. Madison County, Nos. 82-CV-1160, 82-CV-1161, 1988 WL 96581 , at *7-8, LEXIS 10450, at *20 (N.D.N.Y.

King v. TWA, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 258 (8th Cir.1984).

See, e.g., King v. Trans World Airlines, 738 F.2d 255 (8th Cir.1984) (alleging gender-plus-ehild care discrimination); Inda v. United Air Lines, 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir.1977) (alleging gender-plus-marriage discrimination), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1007 , 98 S.Ct. 1877 , 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978); Sprogis v. United Air Lines, 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 991 , 92 S.Ct. 536 , 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971).

See King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir.1984) (remanding Title VII claim to district court to “reevaluate the evidence in light of the proper standard of proof”); see also Yuchert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 307 (9th Cir.1988) (remanding disability case to the Secretary to make findings in accord with proper standard of review).

See King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 260 (8th Cir.1984) (remanding Title VII claim to district court to "reevaluate the evidence in light of the proper standard of proof"); see also Yuckert v. Bowen, 841 F.2d 303, 307 (9th Cir.1988) (remanding disability case to the Secretary to make findings in accord with proper standard of review) 2 There is no allegation that the occupancy at issue violates any local ordinance 3 It is ironic that the business necessity e…

See, e.g., King v. Trans World Airlines, 738 F.2d 255 (8th Cir.1984) (alleging gender-plus-child care discrimination); Inda v. United Air Lines, 565 F.2d 554 (9th Cir.1977) (alleging gender-plus-marriage discrimination), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 1007 , 98 S.Ct. 1877 , 56 L.Ed.2d 388 (1978); Sprogis v. United Air Lines, 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir.) (same), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 991 , 92 S.Ct. 536 , 30 L.Ed.2d 543 (1971).

See id. at 259 .

See King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 257 (8th Cir. 1984); Ostroff v. Employment Exch., Inc., 683 F.2d 302 , 304 (9th Cir.1982) (“when an employer rejects an applicant without considering his or her qualifications, those qualifications are irrelevant to whether the Title VII Plaintiff has raised a prima facie case of disparate treatment”); Buchanan v. Tower Automotive, Inc., 31 F.Supp.2d 644, 654 (E.D.Wis.1999) (failure to interview based race is a violation …

See King v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 738 F.2d 255, 259 (8th Cir.1984).