Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp.
Washington Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrachtenbach, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I concur in the result because I agree that instruction 17, the statement of the "four-fifths" rule, is an impermissible comment on the evidence. However, I disagree with the majority's treatment of disparate impact analysis and the payment of expert witness costs.
Underlying my disagreement with the majority is a basic difference between the majority's and my understanding of the purpose of the discrimination statute. I believe the majority inaccurately dichotomizes potential interpretations of the statute; the majority endorses an interpretation of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- 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
- Connecticut v. TealSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Dorothy P. Robinson v. Lorillard Corporation (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1971
- Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.