In re Flowers

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “no violation of Title VII can be grounded on the disparate impact theory without proof that the questioned policy or practice has had a disproportionate impact on the employer’s workforce”
• upholding no-beard policy despite showing that some black men had difficulty complying due to racially-linked skin disease
• rejecting a disparate impact claim because there was insufficient evidence that an employer's policy excluded more blacks than whites from a job
• rejecting a disparate impact claim because there was insufficient evidence that an employer’s policy excluded more blacks than whites from a job
• “[A] policy does not have a disparate impact unless it is the cause of that impact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).