Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust
E642303
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the standards for proving disparate impact discrimination in employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7093901 — 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: Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Context triple: [Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, relatedCase, Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust]
-
A.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted federal employment discrimination protections, prompting Congress to expand and clarify those rights in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Ingraham v. Wright
Ingraham v. Wright is a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to corporal punishment in public schools and that due process does not require a prior hearing before such discipline is imposed.
- 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: Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Target entity description: Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the standards for proving disparate impact discrimination in employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
-
A.
Lucas v. Earl
Lucas v. Earl is a landmark 1930 U.S. Supreme Court tax law case that established the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns it, regardless of contractual arrangements to split or assign that income.
-
B.
Branch v. Texas
Branch v. Texas is a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing the constitutionality and application of the death penalty in the wake of the landmark Furman v. Georgia decision.
-
C.
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union
Patterson v. McLean Credit Union is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowly interpreted federal employment discrimination protections, prompting Congress to expand and clarify those rights in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
Ingraham v. Wright
Ingraham v. Wright is a 1977 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to corporal punishment in public schools and that due process does not require a prior hearing before such discipline is imposed.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (41)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Title VII case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ employment discrimination case ⓘ |
| appliesTo |
employment promotion decisions
ⓘ
subjective evaluation procedures in employment ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw | disparate impact doctrine ⓘ |
| citation | 487 U.S. 977 ⓘ |
| clarified |
application of disparate impact analysis to subjective promotion and hiring criteria
ⓘ
standards for proving disparate impact under Title VII ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1988-03-22 ⓘ |
| field |
United States civil rights law
ⓘ
United States constitutional law ⓘ United States labor law ⓘ |
| holding |
once a prima facie case of disparate impact is established, the employer has the burden of producing evidence of business justification
ⓘ
plaintiffs alleging disparate impact must identify the specific employment practice being challenged ⓘ plaintiffs must offer statistical evidence showing that the challenged practice caused a significant disparate impact on a protected group ⓘ subjective or discretionary employment practices may be analyzed under a disparate impact theory ⓘ the ultimate burden of persuasion remains with the plaintiff ⓘ |
| issue |
burden of proof in disparate impact cases
ⓘ
disparate impact discrimination ⓘ subjective or discretionary employment practices ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalEffect |
influenced later interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991
ⓘ
made clear that subjective employment practices are not immune from disparate impact analysis ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
civil rights law
ⓘ
employment discrimination law ⓘ labor and employment law ⓘ |
| page | 977 ⓘ |
| party |
Fort Worth Bank & Trust
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Watson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| petitioner | Watson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| relatedTo |
Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Title VII disparate impact jurisprudence ⓘ Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent | Fort Worth Bank & Trust NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| statuteInterpreted | Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| volume | 487 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1988 ⓘ |
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: Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust Description of subject: Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust is a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case that clarified the standards for proving disparate impact discrimination in employment practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.