Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Davis v. Dist. of Columbia
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
Decided June 7, 2019No. 17-7071Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKatsas, Circuit Judge
This case arises out of a reduction in force (RIF) conducted by the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency. The plaintiffs challenged the RIF as the source of an alleged disparate impact on black employees. On summary judgment, the district court held that the RIF itself-a series of layoffs-was not a particular employment practice subject to disparate-impact challenge under Title VII.
My colleagues remand for the district court to consider other challenges to more specific practices through which the RIF might have been implemented-decisions to eliminate certain job categories…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. MoodySupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Ricci v. DeStefanoSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & TrustSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.