McClain v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• suggesting that statistically significant statistics may not be sufficient to support an inference of adverse impact under certain circumstances
• stating that EEOC complaints should be construed “broadly but in terms of the administrative EEOC investigation that can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination”
• explaining that “the ‘scope’ of the judicial complaint is limited to the ‘scope’ of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.”
• explaining that “the ‘scope’ of the judicial complaint is limited to the ‘scope’ of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.”
• noting that “if the price of a Rule 23(b)(2) disparate treatment class both limits individual opt outs and sacrifices class members’ rights to avail themselves of significant legal remedies, it is too high a price to impose”
• noting that “if the price of a Rule 23(b)(2) disparate treatment class both limits individual opt outs and sacrifices class members' rights to avail themselves of significant legal remedies, it is too high a price to impose”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).