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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 51 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 Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. Anchor | green | “a robust causality requirement ensures that 'racial imbalance . . . does not, without more, establish a prima facie case of disparate impact' and thus protects defendants from being held liable for racial disparities they did not create.” | 31 |
| 2 | Percy Allen, Yvette Clinkscale, Paul Gergoire v. City of Chicago | green | “consistent with business necessity.” | 6 |
| 3 | Percy Allen, Yvette Clinkscale, Paul Gergoire v. City of Chicago | green | “to succeed on a disparate impact claim, plaintiffs bear the burden of showing that a particular employment practice causes a disparate impact on the basis of race.” | 6 |
| 4 | William O. Mozee, Gregory L. Rankin, Frederick Williams v. American Commercial Marine Service Company | green | “the plaintiffs' analysis must take into account the major variables one might expect to cause a statistical disparity.” | 4 |
| 5 | Joselito Vitug v. Multistate Tax Commission, Dan R. Bucks, as Executive Director, Les Koenig, as Director of Audit | green | “demonstrate causation by offering 'statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused the exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group.” | 4 |
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.