Karl Parker, Jr. v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company T/a the Chessie System the B & O Railroad

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “a layperson should not be burdened with the ‘sometimes impossible task’ of correctly anticipating how a given court will interpret a particular statute”
• concluding that the record did not contain sufficient information on the effect of affirmative action plan on nonminority employees, and holding that therefore “a crucial fact remained disputed, and ... summary judgment was premature”
• modifying the MeDonnell Douglas framework in a race discrimination case brought by a white plaintiff
• “[M]aking the protected nature of an employee’s opposition to alleged discrimination depend on the ultimate resolution of his claim would be inconsistent with the remedial purposes of Title VII.”
• “[A] layperson should not be burdened -with the ‘sometimes impossible task’ of correctly anticipating how a given court will interpret a particular statute.”
• “[P]articipation clause ... has ... been interpreted as shielding recourse to the EEOC.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).