422 U.S. 405 (1975) Cited 2,622 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that an employment policy cannot stand if another policy, "without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest"
In Day v. Mathews, 530 F.2d 1083 (D.C. Cir. 1976), there was conceded proof that the Department of Health, Education and Welfare had treated Mr. Day's applications for promotion in discriminatory fashion.
In Hairston, the district court denied back pay to some members of a class who were systematically discriminated against in employment because of race. Hairston, supra, 520 F.2d at 229.
29 U.S.C. § 791 Cited 2,288 times 6 Legal Analyses
Adopting standards for ADA claims under § 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, including 42 U.S.C. § 12112, which forbids discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability . . ."
Referring to "the various departments, agencies, and branches of the Federal Government responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this subchapter"
Stating that, although "outside earnings ... undertaken to replace" the employment from which an employee has been wrongfully separated should be deducted in calculating backpay, "earnings from additional or ‘moonlight’ employment the employee may have engaged in while Federally employed (before separation) and while erroneously separated" should not be deducted