Marc E. Bacon v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.

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 pattern-or-practice method of proving discrimination is not available to individual plaintiffs”
• stating that “[p]attern-or-practice evidence may be relevant to proving an otherwise- viable individual claim for disparate treatment under the McDonnell Douglas framework”
• explaining that a “[d]isparate impact analysis is used when an employer’s facially neutral policy adversely affects a protected class”
• finding that a class of 800 current and former employees was “a number well beyond the point that joinder would be feasible”
• explaining that the \basic principles\ of standing require \an individual plaintiff arguing a disparate impact theory [to] show that the challenged policy directly disadvantaged [her] in some fashion\
• noting that the “sheer number of potential litigants in a class, especially if it is more than several hundred, can be the only factor needed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).