Law Commons^™

Title Vii Works - That's Why We Don't Like It, Chuck Henson

Faculty Publications

In response to the universal belief that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not fulfilling its purpose, this Article presents a different perspective on the reality of this federal employment discrimination law. Title VII is fulfilling the purpose of the Congress that created it. The purpose was not the eradication of all discrimination in employment. The purpose was to balance the prohibition of the most obvious forms of discrimination with the preservation of as much employer decision-making latitude as possible. Moreover, the seminal Supreme Court decision, McDonnell Douglas v. Green, accurately implemented this balance. This Article …

Shortcuts In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

Are employment discrimination plaintiffs viewed by society and by judges with an increased skepticism? This article urges that the same actor inference, the stray comment doctrine, and strict temporal nexus requirements, as courts have applied them, make up a larger and dangerous trend in the area of employment discrimination jurisprudence- that of courts reverting to special, judge-made "shortcuts" to curtail or even bypass analysis necessary to justify the disposal or proper adjudication of a case. This shorthand across different doctrines reveals a willingness of the judiciary to proxy monolithic assumptions for the individualized reasoned analyses mandated by the relevant antidiscrimination …

The Paradox Of Personality: Mental Illness, Employment Discrimination, And The Americans With Disabilities Act, Deirdre M. Smith

Faculty Publications

Both medicine and the law devote considerable concern to drawing lines, that is, to classifying and making distinctions. In medicine, such line-drawing occurs when a person is designated healthy or ill, normal or disordered. In the law, such line-drawing determines who does and does not bear legal responsibility for a given situation. This Article reviews the demarcation drawn by psychiatry and the courts between disfavored personality and mental illness, a dichotomy not based upon empirical science and therefore, wholly susceptible to social construction and implementation. While society may pathologize noxious personalities, thus making them disabilities, it is loath to extend …

Is There A Place For Race As A Legal Concept, Sharona Hoffman

Faculty Publications

What does "race" mean? The word "race" is omnipresent in American social, political, and legal discourse. The concept of "race" is central to contemporary debate about affirmative action, racial profiling, hate crimes, health inequities, and many other issues. Nevertheless, the best research in genetics, medicine, and the social sciences reveals that the concept of "race" is elusive and has no reliable definition.

This article argues that "race" is an unnecessary and potentially pernicious concept. As evidenced by the history of slavery, segregation, the Holocaust, and other human tragedies, the idea of "race" can perpetuate prejudices and misconceptions and serve as …

Attitudinal Barriers To Hiring Attorneys With Disabilities, Michael Ashley Stein

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Challenging Discriminatory Guesswork: Does Impact Analysis Apply, Michael A. Middleton

Faculty Publications

This article initially examines the traditional theories of proof in Title VII cases. It then discusses approaches by lower courts in resolving the competing concerns raised in applying those traditional theories in challenges to subjective selection devices. This article next discusses the Supreme Court's resolution of the problem in Watson and suggests a workable alternative resolution that will not undermine the broad prophylactic purposes of Title VII.