Annie Mae Carpenter, Cross-Appellants v. Stephen F. Austin State University, Cross-Appellees

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court abused its discretion in failing to award back pay to plaintiffs, because the “purposes of Title VII command back pay relief in all but ‘special’ circumstances”
• explaining that when a class representative is disqualified as inadequate, “the appropriate step is appointment of new representatives from the existing class, not decertification”
• finding satisfaction of commonality and typicality where plaintiffs alleged similar discriminatory employment practices, though the nature of their injuries differed
• finding typicality and commonality where an employer “utilized subjective job assignment procedures that resulted in placement of women, as well as blacks, according to stereotyped views of job qualifications”
• \The statistical proof of channeling ... and the anecdotal testimony of female ... employees presented at trial set forth common issues of law and fact\
• “The statistical proof of channeling ... and the anecdotal testimony of female ... employees presented at trial set forth common issues of law and fact”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).