Epstein Secrets

pattern or practice" of discrimination such that the discrimination is "the regular rather than the unusual practice." Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 336; Cooper, 467 U.S. at 875-76; see also Wal-Mart, 131 S. Ct. at 2552 n.7. The required discriminatory r*49] intent may be inferred upon such a showing. See Te

origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. The promotions claim first alleges a pattern or practice of racially disparate treatment in promotions decisions. See Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 336, 97 S. Ct. 1843, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977). Second, it charges that Nucor's facially neutral promotions policies

is." Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 995 n.3, 108 S. Ct. 2777, 101 L. Ed. 2d 827 (1988) (plurality opinion); see also Intl Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 340, 97 S. Ct. 1843, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977) . Neither "courts [n]or defendants [are] obliged to assume that plaint

n), William Horace Jeffress, Jr., Christopher R. Cooper, Sara E. Kropf, Jamie S. Kilberg, Baker Botts L

ally, but in- sufficient contacts with any one state in particular. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(2) advisory committee's note; United Stales v. Intl. Bhd, of Teamsters, 945 F.Supp. 609, 616- 17 (S.D.N.Y.1996). For jurisdiction under Rule 4(k)(2), there must be a federal claim, personal jurisdiction must not exist

lt-Nielsen's tank- er division, Samuel Cooperman. Cooper- man informed Nannes that O'Brien "raisledl some

s to afford no reasonable basis for board's conclusion that they resulted in dissipa- tion of union's majority. Order accordingly. 1. Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers Local Union 215. s/w International Brother. L. FRANK, INO. 35 KIM 35 (1965) Labor Relations 4=389 Employer's general manager's re-