Law Commons^™

Proving Discrimination By The Text, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Employment discrimination laws make the “simple but momentous” declaration that it is illegal to deny employment on the basis of race, sex, religion, or other key aspects of identity. But when employees who have been treated unfairly turn to the courts for relief, courts rarely assess whether their claims meet the statutory standard. Instead, they funnel the evidence through a convoluted body of judge-made law known as McDonnell Douglas burden shifting.

This Article lays bare fundamental inconsistencies between the statutes’ causal language, as definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent cases, and the burden-shifting process. In Bostock v. Clayton …

Discrimination Law: The New Franken-Tort, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This article was part of the Clifford Symposium in Tort Law. The article discusses how the Supreme Court has used tort law to define certain elements of discrimination law, but has not described all of the elements of this new tort. The article is the first one to try to piece together the new "tort" created by the Supreme Court.

Justice Kennedy's Big New Idea, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In a 2015 case, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs could bring disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act (the "FHA"). In the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy relied heavily on the text and supporting case law interpreting Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA '). Without explicitly recognizing the powerful new idea he was advocating, Justice Kennedy's majority opinion radically reconceptualized federal employment discrimination jurisprudence. This new reading of Title VII and the ADEA changes both the theoretical framing of the discrimination statutes and greatly expands their scope. …

Shifting The Burden: Genuine Disputes And Employment Discrimination Standards Of Proof, Barrett S. Moore

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

Enacted for the purpose of battling workplace discrimination by targeting discrimination against minorities and the disadvantaged, Title VII has become somewhat of an apparition for good-intentioned employers seeking to follow the law. For example, in Ricci v. DeStefano, the city of New Haven, Connecticut refused to hire white firefighters based on a qualification test because to do so would produce the outcome of hiring too few minority firefighters. Despite New Haven's good intentions, the hiring process illegally brought race into the hiring process, thereby showing that America's relationship with civil rights legislation has come full circle.

At the center of …

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 …

The Demise Of Circumstantial Proof In Employment Discrimination Litigation: St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Pretext, And The 'Personality' Excuse, Mark S. Brodin

Mark S. Brodin

Since the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the courts have struggled to define the burdens of proof surrounding the central issue of an employer's alleged discriminatory intent. What evolved was the McDonnell Douglas framework, premised upon established concepts of circumstantial proof and inference. The approach permits plaintiffs lacking direct proof to nonetheless establish a violation of the Act by proving that the employer's explanation of the challenged decision was pretextual. In St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, a closely-divided Supreme Court substantially altered the McDonnell Douglas framework. Discrediting the reasons offered by the employer …

No Intent, No Foul? Unconscious Bias In Employment Decisions, Martin J. Katz

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Many commentators have criticized current anti-discrimination law on the grounds that it does not adequately prohibit unconscious bias in employment decisions. That claim is wrong: Unconscious bias is fully actionable, and it can generally be proved by knowledgeable employment lawyers. The idea behind unconscious bias is that well-meaning employers and supervisors, who would likely consider themselves supporters or even champions of equality, might subconsciously harbor attitudes that result in negative employment decisions for women and minorities.

The Allure And Danger Of Practicing Law As Taxonomy, Marcia L. Mccormick

All Faculty Scholarship

In this article, I hope to contribute to the ongoing debate on how our society treats the problem of discrimination. Many scholars have criticized the types of antidiscrimination statutes we have enacted as well as the ways in which the courts have interpreted those laws. While I agree with many of these critiques, rather than tackle those very large issues at the outset, I focus on the test the courts currently use to evaluate the evidence to determine whether an inference can be made that discrimination has occurred. I argue that lawyers and courts have become so caught up in …

Discrimination And Business Regulation (The Supreme Court And Local Government Law: The 1999-2000 Term), Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Discrimination Cases, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Credulous Courts And The Tortured Trilogy: The Improper Use Of Summary Judgment In Title Vii And Adea Cases, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

Civil rights are under siege. In mid-1989, the United States Supreme Court decided several cases that severely limit the civil rights claims and remedies available to a plaintiff claiming employment discrimination. This Article examines the gradual and continuing erosion of the factfinder's role in federal employment discrimination cases and its replacement by an increasing use of summary judgment through which the courts make pretrial determinations formerly reserved for the factfinder at trial. This trend not only represents a major shift in court procedure and, in the case of age discrimination claims, a transfer of power from juries to judges, but …