Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Shannon v. Pay 'N Save Corp.

Washington Supreme Court

Decided November 21, 1985No. 51117-9Published

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

  1. International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  3. Connecticut v. TealSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  4. Dorothy P. Robinson v. Lorillard Corporation (Two Cases)Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1971
  5. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API