Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Predicate of Discrimination The majority apparently concludes that “vestiges” of past discrimination do not constitute a sufficient predicate for affirmative action — that there must be some kind of “smoking gun” evidence of present discrimination before a predicate can be found. The majority is, of course, wrong. The Supreme Court has stated time and again, in both Title VII and equal protection contexts, that affirmative action may be used to eradicate continuing effects (i.e., “vestiges”) of discrimination that occurred in the past. See, e.g., Wygant, 106 S.Ct. at 1847; Fullilove, 448 U.S. at 484, 100 S.Ct. at 2777; id. at 496, 100 S.Ct. at 2783 (Powell, J., concurring); Weber, 443 U.S. at 197, 99 S.Ct. at 2724; Bakke, 438 U.S. at 307-308, 98 S.Ct. .2d 557, 562-63 (7th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>). The majority states that there must always be 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiffs evidence of statistical disparities in hiring promotion and compensation was sufficient to support claim of intentional discrimination where the employment decisions were based on completely subjective criteria (B) holding that statistical disparity plus other indicia of past discrimination constitute sufficient remedial predicate (C) holding in the discrimination context that a plaintiff may challenge incidents which occurred outside the statute of limitations period if the various acts of discrimination constitute a continuing pattern of discrimination (D) holding that an anonymous tip must have sufficient indicia of reliability to justify a stop and frisk (E) holding that a thirtyone month delay could be outweighed by other indicia of reliability
Output (English): holding that plaintiffs evidence of statistical disparities in hiring promotion and compensation was sufficient to support claim of intentional discrimination where the employment decisions were based on completely subjective criteria