GARTNER

v.

CALIFORNIA

Citator

Cited By (31 total)

• Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1993)
  …nte, at 610, we have not yet addressed the question whether such a claim is cognizable under the ADEA, and there are substantial arguments that it is improper to carry over disparate impact analysis from Title VII to the ADEA. See Markham v. Geller, 451 U. S. 945 (1981) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Metz v. Transit Mix, Inc., 828 F. 2d 1202, 1216-1220 (CA7 1987) (Easterbrook, J., dissenting); Note, Age Discrimination and the Disparate Impact Doctrine, 34 Stan. L. Rev. 837 (1982). It…
• Blackwell v. SUN Elec. Corp., 696 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1983)
  …ble to the plaintiff. Thus all of the factors set forth in the guidelines in Laugesen are present. The Second Circuit recently addressed a similar issue in an age discrimination case. In Geller v. Markham, 635 F. 2d 1027 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied 451 U.S. 945, 101 S.Ct. 2028, 68 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981), the court upheld a jury verdict for the plaintiff even though the district court refused to amend a special interrogatory which asked whether a scheme which was discriminatory on its face was “one reason” for…
• Maud Lee Thornbrough, Jr. v. Columbus & Greenville R.R. Co., 760 F.2d 633 (5th Cir. 1985)
  …ployees, or as to whether, if so, this had a disparate impact and hence violated the ADEA. Cf. Geller v. Markham, 635 F. 2d 1027, 1032-34 (2d Cir. 1980) (basing hiring decisions on relative starting salaries may have disparate impact), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 945, 101 S.Ct. 2028, 68 L.Ed.2d 332 (1981). See generally Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 446-47, 102 S.Ct. 2525, 2531, 73 L.Ed.2d 130 (1982) (elements of disparate impact case). . Although Thornbrough compared his treatment not merely to employees…