Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp.green2 sentences2015Shannon v. Pay ’N Save Corp., 104 Wn.2d 722, 730 , 709 P.2d 799 (1985). 2015Shannon v. Pay ’N Save Corp., 104 Wn.2d 722, 730 , 709 P.2d 799 (1985). | 2 | 3 |
cluster 393283green2 sentences2013See Shannon v. Pay ’N Save Corp., 104 Wn.2d 722, 730 , 709 P.2d 799 (1985) (adopting Ninth Circuit’s standard for proving business necessity articulated in Contreras v. City of Los Angeles, 656 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1981)). ¶27 Here, Mr. Fey did not claim that the district engaged in intentional discrimination. 2013See Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp., 104 Wn.2d 722, 730 , 709 P.2d 799 (1985) (adopting Ninth Circuit's standard for proving business necessity articulated in Contreras v. City ofLos Angeles, 656 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1981)). | 2 | 2 |
William Rose, Jr. Orie Reed v. Wells Fargo & Companygreen1 sentence2023See Katz v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 229 F.3d 831 , 836 (9th Cir. 2000) (“the plaintiff's statistical evidence is insufficient to raise an inference that the disparate impact fell upon employees by virtue of their membership in a protected age group”); Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming summary judgment where statistical evidence was insufficient to show a disproportionate impact). | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Katz v. The Regents Of The University Of Californiagreen1 sentence2023See Katz v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 229 F.3d 831 , 836 (9th Cir. 2000) (“the plaintiff's statistical evidence is insufficient to raise an inference that the disparate impact fell upon employees by virtue of their membership in a protected age group”); Rose v. Wells Fargo & Co., 902 F.2d 1417, 1425 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming summary judgment where statistical evidence was insufficient to show a disproportionate impact). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Short v. Battle Ground School District
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States
green
2 sentences2007Liability in a disparate-treatment case "`depends on whether the protected trait . . . actually motivated the employer's decision.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 , 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993)). [8] Although Shannon defines "business necessity" in conjunction with a disparate impact claim, the basic definition of business necessity can also be applied to disparate treatment claims, albeit with a different burden of proof allocation. 1985International Bhd. of Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336 . | 2 | 1985–2007 |
Elizabeth A. Honce v. Jose A. Vigil, D/B/A Dorado Investments, Inc., A/K/A Villa Chaparral Mobile Home Sub-Division Dorado Investments, Inc.
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 1501 (citing Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 , 934-39 (2nd Cir.), aff'd in part, 488 U.S. 15 , 109 S.Ct. 276 , 102 L.Ed.2d 180 (1988)). 2001Id. at 1501 (citing Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 , 934-35 (2d Cir.), aff’d in part, 488 U.S. 15 , 109 S. Ct. 276 , 102 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Town of Huntington v. Huntington Branch
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 1501 (citing Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 , 934-35 (2d Cir.), aff’d in part, 488 U.S. 15 , 109 S. Ct. 276 , 102 L. 2001Id. at 1501 (citing Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 , 934-35 (2d Cir.), aff’d in part, 488 U.S. 15 , 109 S. Ct. 276 , 102 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Huntington Branch, National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People v. The Town Of Huntington
green
2 sentences2001Id. at 1501 (citing Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 , 934-39 (2nd Cir.), aff'd in part, 488 U.S. 15 , 109 S.Ct. 276 , 102 L.Ed.2d 180 (1988)). 2001Id. at 1501 (citing Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 , 934-35 (2d Cir.), aff’d in part, 488 U.S. 15 , 109 S. Ct. 276 , 102 L. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
green
2 sentences2024For a disparate impact claim under the WLAD, the plaintiff must prove (1) there is a facially neutral policy or practice and (2) the policy “falls more harshly on a protected class.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 503 , 325 P.3d 193 (2014) (citing Oliver, 106 Wn.2d at 679 ). 2024For a disparate impact claim under the WLAD, the plaintiff must prove (1) there is a facially neutral policy or practice and (2) the policy “falls more harshly on a protected class.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 503 , 325 P.3d 193 (2014) (citing Oliver, 106 Wn.2d at 679 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Oliver v. Pacific Northwest Bell Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence2024For a disparate impact claim under the WLAD, the plaintiff must prove (1) there is a facially neutral policy or practice and (2) the policy “falls more harshly on a protected class.” Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wn.2d 481, 503 , 325 P.3d 193 (2014) (citing Oliver, 106 Wn.2d at 679 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Tafoya v. Human Rights Commission
green
1 sentence2024First, Tafoya did not involve a disparate impact claim at all—there, a tenant filed a complaint under the WLAD when her landlord sexually harassed her. 177 Wn. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 , 542, 135 S. Ct. 2507 , 2523, 192 L. 2023Tex. Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affs. v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 , 542, 135 S. Ct. 2507 , 2523, 192 L. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 353-54 & n.7.2 Requiring criminal background checks has been held to be an employment practice that can have a disparate impact on a protected class. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins
green
2 sentences2007Liability in a disparate-treatment case "`depends on whether the protected trait . . . actually motivated the employer's decision.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 , 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993)). [8] Although Shannon defines "business necessity" in conjunction with a disparate impact claim, the basic definition of business necessity can also be applied to disparate treatment claims, albeit with a different burden of proof allocation. 2007Liability in a disparate-treatment case "`depends on whether the protected trait . . . actually motivated the employer's decision.'" Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 609 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 , 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993)). [8] Although Shannon defines "business necessity" in conjunction with a disparate impact claim, the basic definition of business necessity can also be applied to disparate treatment claims, albeit with a different burden of proof allocation. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
cluster 430902
green
1 sentence1985Page v. U.S. Indus., Inc., supra. There is no reason to foreclose a disparate impact analysis simply because only subjective criteria are involved. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.