Legal Opinion
Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp.
Washington Supreme Court
Decided November 21, 1985No. 51117-9PublishedCited by 41 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDurham, J.
Pay 'n Save Corporation appeals from a judgment entered upon a jury verdict finding it liable, pursuant to RCW 49.60, for discriminating against Iris Shannon in employment because of her gender. Pay 'n Save Contends that the trial court erred by: (1) submitting Shannon's theory of disparate impact to the jury, (2) allowing Shannon to introduce statistical evidence at trial, (3) refusing to find that a juror's statements constituted misconduct requiring a new trial, and (4) awarding Shannon $40,267 in attorney fees. Alternatively, Pay 'n Save argues that even if the trial court was justified…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
- International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by41 opinions
- E-Z Loader Boat Trailers, Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1986
- Phillips v. City of SeattleWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- Xieng v. Peoples National BankWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2014
- Hegwine v. Longview Fibre Co.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.