Full text
McKenzie v. General Motors Corp.
C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Loading…
Loading…
Opinion
78 L. Ed. 2d 314 · Supreme Court of the United States · Oct 31, 1983
Full text
McKenzie v. General Motors Corp.
D. New Jersey · Aug 31, 2000
D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 2000
D. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2000
E.D. Michigan · Jan 31, 2000
Parentheticals
court has discretion to deny leave to amend where the proposed amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss
leave to amend need not be granted where the amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss
leave to amend need not be granted where the amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss
trial court may deny leave to amend where amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss
"An adverse effect on a single employee, or even a few employees, is not sufficient to establish disparate impact.”
“the trial court may properly deny leave to amend where the amendment would not withstand a motion to dismiss”
The plaintiffs’ burden with respect to a disparate impact claim is heavier than it is when disparate treatment is alleged
disparate impact analysis requires showing that facially neutral employment practice had a significantly discriminatory impact
“the nature of the required showing depends on the circumstances of the case”
nature of plaintiffs showing depends on circumstances of the case
to make out prima facie case, plaintiff “need only show that he is a member of the protected class and that he was laid off from a job for which he was qualified while others not in the protected class were treated more favorably”
to make out prima facie case, plaintiff "need only show that he is a member of the protected class and that he was laid off from a job for which he was qualified while others not in the protected class were treated more favorably"