42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 · A outline

Actionable harm to employment status or terms, conditions, or privileges of employment under § 2000e-2(a)(1)-(2).

11 merits instance blocks; 9 distinct cases

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Ultimate causation/intent requirement under § 2000e-2(a): the protected trait was a determinative cause of the adverse employment action.

9 merits instance blocks; 6 distinct cases

Narrow statutory exception under § 2000e-2(e)(1) for religion, sex, or national origin (omitting race and color).

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Statutory safe harbors under § 2000e-2(h) for bona fide seniority/merit systems and professionally developed ability tests.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

An employer's discharge decision lies only against the employer under § 2000e-2(a), whereas a union is liable only under § 2000e-2(c) (such as causing or attempting to cause an employer to discriminate under (c)(3)).

8 merits instance blocks; 7 distinct cases

McDonnell Douglas step 2: once a prima facie case is established, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.

4 merits instance blocks; 3 distinct cases

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Harassment so severe or pervasive as to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an objectively and subjectively abusive working environment.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

• OR Basis for imputing harassment liability to the employer

  Basis for imputing workplace harassment to the employer under agency principles.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  coworker-harassment/unreported-incidents-and-investigated-incident		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp-2d/477/0041-01 — United States District Court for the District of Columbia · 2007 — not
  coworker-negligence	Employer knew or should have known of coworker harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate corrective action	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot
  supervisor-harassment	Vicarious liability for supervisor harassment resulting in a tangible employment action or unexcused by Faragher/Ellerth	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot

Prima facie disparate impact under Griggs and § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff identifies a specific employment practice that causes a significant disproportionate adverse impact on a protected group. RICCI_SCOPE: Ricci quotes in this block describe a hypothetical disparate-impact claim considered within the defense to intentional discrimination; they do not record adjudication of an actual subsection (k) claim against this employer.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

• AND Less discriminatory alternative employment practice that the employer refuses to adopt (§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii))

  Plaintiff's surrebuttal under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(ii): even if a practice is job-related and consistent with business necessity, liability attaches if the employer refuses to adopt a less discriminatory alternative. RICCI_SCOPE: Ricci quotes in this block describe a hypothetical disparate-impact claim considered within the defense to intentional discrimination; they do not record adjudication of an actual subsection (k) claim against this employer.

  0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  alternative-practice/reweighting-banding-assessment-center		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — applied/hypothetical
  less-discriminatory-alternative	Available alternative employment practice with less disparate impact that serves the employer's legitimate needs and that the employer refuses to adopt	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot

• AND Job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity (§ 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i))

  Employer's rebuttal burden under § 2000e-2(k)(1)(A)(i). Under § 2000e-2(k)(2), business necessity may not be used as a defense against a claim of intentional discrimination. RICCI_SCOPE: Ricci quotes in this block describe a hypothetical disparate-impact claim considered within the defense to intentional discrimination; they do not record adjudication of an actual subsection (k) claim against this employer.

  0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  business-necessity/height-requirement		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f2d/706/0001-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982 — applied/superseded
  business-necessity/job-related-exam-professionally-developed-from-job-analysis		0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1	0	No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /us/557/0557-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2009 — applied/hypothetical
  job-related-necessity	Demonstration that the challenged practice is job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

SCOPE_QUALIFIER: subsection (n)(1) preclusion requires either actual notice plus reasonable opportunity to object, or adequate prior representation on the same grounds/facts absent intervening change. Paragraphs (n)(2)(A)-(D) preserve intervention, party/class rights, fraud/collusion/jurisdiction challenges, and due process; (n)(3) specifies forum for nonprecluded actions. This is not a blanket defense or independent liability claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

SCOPE_QUALIFIER: subsection (k)(2) bars business necessity as a defense to intentional discrimination; it is not an additional element or a freestanding claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

SCOPE_QUALIFIER: subsection (k)(3) addresses an alternative employment practice involving a rule against current knowing controlled-substance use/possession, with its statutory exceptions. This is not a requirement to discriminate or a freestanding offense.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Added by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (§ 107(a)): establishes an unlawful employment practice whenever a protected trait was a motivating factor, even if lawful factors also motivated the practice.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

SCOPE_QUALIFIER: subsection (j) says imbalance alone does not require preferential treatment. This is a rule of construction, not a statutory exemption from discrimination liability.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

McDonnell Douglas step 3: plaintiff shows that the employer's proffered reason is false / unworthy of credence, permitting (though not compelling) the factfinder to infer intentional discrimination.

3 merits instance blocks; 2 distinct cases

Every individual has a race, color, religion, sex, and national origin; in circuits applying a modified McDonnell Douglas prima facie prong to majority-group ("reverse discrimination") plaintiffs, background circumstances suggesting inclination to discriminate against the majority group are required.

10 merits instance blocks; 10 distinct cases

Doctrinal element from McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973)), ruling out lack of baseline job qualification as the most common non-discriminatory reason for non-selection or discharge.

5 merits instance blocks; 5 distinct cases

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Title VII anti-retaliation claim (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)) routinely litigated alongside § 2000e-2 discrimination claims: requires (1) protected activity, (2) materially adverse action under the Burlington Northern dissuasion standard, and (3) causal connection.

6 merits instance blocks; 4 distinct cases

• OR Protected opposition or participation activity under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)

  Protected opposition or participation under § 2000e-3(a); general labor or workplace grievances unrelated to a Title VII protected trait do not qualify as protected activity.

  1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

  Recorded DB variant labels, including zero-count variants

  Variant	Description	Merits instance blocks	Distinct cases	Example cases (up to 3 per group)
  opposition	Internal or external opposition to unlawful Title VII discrimination	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot
  participation	Filing an EEOC charge or participating in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing	0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0	0	No annotation uses in this snapshot
  protected-activity/union-organizing-not-directed-at-discrimination		1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0	1	/f-supp/604/1450-01 — United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina · 1985 — not

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

This block records the subsection-specific route or exception; it is not a universal conjunct of every Title VII claim.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

No variants recorded in this snapshot.

Rejected defense under Connecticut v. Teal (457 U.S. 440 (1982)) and Costa v. Markey: a favorable "bottom line" does not immunize an employer from justifying a specific pass/fail barrier that disproportionately excludes members of a protected group.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Ricci v. DeStefano standard reconciling § 2000e-2(a) disparate treatment and § 2000e-2(k) disparate impact: good-faith fear of disparate-impact litigation or a raw statistical disparity alone is insufficient; the employer must show a strong basis in evidence of disparate-impact liability.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Religious accommodation claim combining § 2000e-2(a)(1) with the definition of "religion" in § 2000e(j); once the prima facie case is shown, the employer may show it offered a reasonable accommodation (such as voluntary shift swaps) or that accommodation would impose an undue hardship.

1 merits instance blocks; 1 distinct cases

Under Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. (415 U.S. 36 (1974)), an adverse arbitral decision under a collective-bargaining agreement that covers only contractual rights does not preclude a statutory Title VII lawsuit.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases

Partial affirmative defense under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B) to a § 2000e-2(m) mixed-motive violation: restricts remedies to declaratory/injunctive relief and attorney's fees, barring damages and reinstatement.

0 merits instance blocks; 0 distinct cases