Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
E821225
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody is a landmark 1975 U.S. Supreme Court employment discrimination case that clarified back pay and validation standards for employment tests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
All labels observed (2)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody canonical | 1 |
| Albemarle Paper Company et al. v. Herman Moody et al. | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T9799591 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody Context triple: [Julius L. Chambers, notableCase, Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody]
-
A.
Crowell v. Benson
Crowell v. Benson is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the constitutional limits of administrative agencies’ fact-finding powers and the scope of judicial review over administrative adjudications.
-
B.
Ogden v. Saunders
Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
-
C.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
D.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
E.
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. is a landmark U.S. securities law case that broadly defined insider trading liability and the disclosure obligations of publicly traded companies under federal law.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody Target entity description: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody is a landmark 1975 U.S. Supreme Court employment discrimination case that clarified back pay and validation standards for employment tests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
-
A.
Crowell v. Benson
Crowell v. Benson is a 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped define the constitutional limits of administrative agencies’ fact-finding powers and the scope of judicial review over administrative adjudications.
-
B.
Ogden v. Saunders
Ogden v. Saunders is an 1827 U.S. Supreme Court case, known for Justice Bushrod Washington’s opinion addressing the constitutionality of state bankruptcy laws under the Contract Clause.
-
C.
McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith is a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the First Amendment’s Petition Clause does not grant absolute immunity from libel suits for statements made in petitions to government officials.
-
D.
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson is a 1986 U.S. Supreme Court case that first recognized workplace sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination actionable under Title VII.
-
E.
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co.
SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co. is a landmark U.S. securities law case that broadly defined insider trading liability and the disclosure obligations of publicly traded companies under federal law.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ |
| citation |
422 U.S. 405
ⓘ
45 L. Ed. 2d 280 ⓘ 95 S. Ct. 2362 ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1975-06-25 ⓘ |
| decisionType | unanimous decision ⓘ |
| fullName |
Albemarle Paper Company et al. v. Herman Moody et al.
ⓘ
linked to:
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
|
| holding |
Back pay should ordinarily be awarded under Title VII absent special circumstances that would make such an award unjust.
ⓘ
Collective bargaining agreements cannot be used to justify or perpetuate unlawful employment discrimination. ⓘ District courts have discretion in awarding back pay, but that discretion must be exercised consistent with the purposes of Title VII. ⓘ Employers using employment tests that have a disparate impact must demonstrate that the tests are job related and validated according to professionally acceptable standards. ⓘ |
| impact |
clarified that back pay is a presumptive remedy in successful Title VII actions
ⓘ
influenced development of EEOC guidelines on employee selection procedures ⓘ strengthened requirements for professional validation of employment tests ⓘ |
| issue |
employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
ⓘ
standards for awarding back pay in Title VII cases ⓘ validation standards for employment tests with disparate impact ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger
ⓘ
linked to:
Warren E. Burger
Justice Byron R. White ⓘ
linked to:
Byron R. White
Justice Harry A. Blackmun ⓘ
linked to:
Harry A. Blackmun
Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
Lewis F. Powell Jr.
Justice Thurgood Marshall ⓘ
linked to:
Thurgood Marshall
Justice William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
linked to:
William H. Rehnquist
Justice William J. Brennan Jr. ⓘ
linked to:
William J. Brennan Jr.
Justice William O. Douglas ⓘ
linked to:
William O. Douglas
|
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| keyConcept |
back pay
ⓘ
business necessity ⓘ disparate impact ⓘ employment test validation ⓘ equitable remedies under Title VII ⓘ |
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalArea |
civil rights law
ⓘ
labor and employment law ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDecision | 474 F.2d 134 (4th Cir.) ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy |
Justice Potter Stewart
ⓘ
linked to:
Potter Stewart
|
| petitioner |
Albemarle Paper Company
ⓘ
Local 103, United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL–CIO ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ⓘ |
| relatedCase | Griggs v. Duke Power Co. ⓘ |
| respondent |
Herman Moody
ⓘ
other African American employees of Albemarle Paper Company ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ |
| term | 1974 Term ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody Description of subject: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody is a landmark 1975 U.S. Supreme Court employment discrimination case that clarified back pay and validation standards for employment tests under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Referenced by (2)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
linked to: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody