Last Updated:
Source: Barron's Dictionary of Legal Terms, Steven H. Gifis, 5th Edition; ©
"In short, the district court considered the above facially-neutral employment practices, not in a vacuum, but in the context of Joe's historical discriminatory practice of excluding women as food servers. The district court properly considered Joe's historical discriminatory practices, and the "males-only" reputation Joe's created for itself, as relevant background evidence in examining whether Joe's facially-neutral employment practices caused and continued the gender disparity in Joe's food servers. In doing so, the district court did not err because it is well-settled that past discrimination is admissible to demonstrate that facially-neutral employment practices continue to perpetuate the effects of past discrimination."
Shop | TBD Marketplace™ | |
Buy | TBD Marketplace™ | |
Sell | TBD Marketplace™ |