Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
E. C. Dothard v. Dianne Rawlinson Hazelwood School District v. United States
Citation: 433 U.S. 347Docket: Nos. 76-422 and 76-255
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; June 27, 1977; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Justice White expresses concurrence with the Court's opinion in Hazelwood School District v. United States (No. 76-255) but raises concerns about the handling of applicant pool data in establishing a prima facie case of employment discrimination. He argues that the focus should have been on Hazelwood's hiring practices during the 1972-1973 and 1973-1974 academic years, particularly given the district's low black enrollment of 2%. He notes that evidence suggests Hazelwood hired a higher percentage of black applicants than white applicants during that period. White emphasizes that while the Court allows for the introduction of applicant pool data on remand to rebut claims of discriminatory practices, the United States might have needed to present evidence on the applicant pool before establishing a prima facie case. In Dothard v. Rawlinson (No. 76-422), White dissents from the conclusion that a prima facie case of sex discrimination was established based on statistics regarding Alabama's height and weight requirements for prison guards. He finds it problematic to assume that the percentage of women applying for these positions reflects the national or state population. White articulates that while plaintiffs can demonstrate distortions in the applicant pool due to discriminatory requirements, no such evidence was presented in this case. Consequently, he cannot agree that Rawlinson proved she was denied employment due to discrimination, leading him to dissent from the Court's judgment in Dothard.