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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 19 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey Anchor | green | “(1) identify a specific employment practice or policy; (2) demonstrate that a disparity exists; and (3) establish a causal relationship between the two.” | 12 |
| 2 | Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc. | green | “must at least set forth enough factual allegations to plausibly support each of the three basic elements of a disparate impact claim.” | 4 |
| 3 | Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc. | green | “the statistics must plausibly suggest that the challenged practice actually has a disparate impact.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.