Albermarle Paper Company v. Moody
In Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975), a disparate impact case, the Supreme Court characterized this rebuttal phase of a plaintiff's case by stating: "(I)t remains open to the complaining party to show that other tests or selection devices, without a similarly undesirable racial effect, would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in 'efficient and trustworthy workmanship.' " Id. at 425. (The Court went on to state that such a showing would be evidence of employer "pretext.")
In Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975), it was noted that the Congress considered several proposals which would have limited the power of the court to award back pay.
They rejected these so as to make possible the fashioning of the most complete relief possible. See 422 U.S. at 421, 95 S.Ct. 2362.
Among the provisions rejected is one that would have "limited back pay liability to a date two years prior to filing a complaint in court."
The Congress instead adopted a substantially more liberal limitation, that is, a date two years prior to filing a charge with the EEOC. 422 U.S. at 420 n. 13, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2373 n. 13. In Albermarle Paper Company v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 421, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 2373, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975), the Supreme Court also noted the appellate court's role in reviewing back pay awards or denials:
"The courts of appeals must maintain a consistent and principled application of the back pay provision, consonant with the twin statutory objectives eradicating discrimination and making discriminatees whole, while at the same time recognizing that the trial court will often have the keener appreciation of those facts and circumstances peculiar to particular cases." Id.