Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Discrimination (5)
- Age discrimination (4)
- Contractors (3)
- Retaliation (3)
- Sarbanes-Oxley Act (3)
-
- Subcontractors (3)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (2)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2)
- Prisoners (2)
- Proof (2)
- Public employees (2)
- Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (2)
- Religious practices (2)
- Summary judgment (2)
- Circuit split (1)
- Civil Rights Act (1)
- Education (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (1)
- Property taxes (1)
- Protected activities (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- Third-party victims (1)
Articles 1 - 24 of 24
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune
Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group?* (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …
Reply Brief Of Petitioners. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1645, 2016 Wl 1555013+A12, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber
Reply Brief Of Petitioners. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1645, 2016 Wl 1555013+A12, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") prohibits state and local governments from imposing "a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person": (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest," and (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). The Question Presented is: Whether RLUIPA requires that prison officials actually consider and demonstrate a sufficient basis for rejecting widely …
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., held in an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that a plaintiff may ordinarily prove the existence of an unlawful motive by establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating the falsity of the employer’s proffered explanation for the disputed employment, and that a plaintiff who does so need not also offer some other additional evidence of discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit held in this Title VII action that the existence of an unlawful motive may not be established in that manner; a plaintiff who establishes a prima facie case and the …
Petion For A Writ Of Certiorari. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 542, 2016 Wl 447654, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber
Petion For A Writ Of Certiorari. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 542, 2016 Wl 447654, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED In Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015), this Court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), renders unlawful an absolute ban on inmates' wearing a beard for religious reasons. The Eleventh Circuit, subsequent to and despite this Court's decision in Holt, rejected a RLUIPA challenge to Alabama's similarly inflexible policy prohibiting all male inmates from wearing long hair for religious reasons. A vast majority of states, the District of Columbia, and all federal prisons accommodate inmates whose religious practices include wearing beards or long hair. The Question Presented is: Whether Alabama's …
Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris
Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …
Reply Brief. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist
Reply Brief. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 5475026, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon
Reply Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 5475026, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which forbids age-based discrimination against state and local government employees, preclude those employees from bringing a section 1983 action to redress age discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause?
Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 4059779, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon
Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 4059779, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether Alabama’s legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Volume 1 Of 2 (Petition With Appendix Pages 1a-563a). Lynch V. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 53 (2014) (No. 13-1232), 2014 U.S. Lexis 5672, Larry T. Menefee, Edward Still, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Volume 1 Of 2 (Petition With Appendix Pages 1a-563a). Lynch V. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 53 (2014) (No. 13-1232), 2014 U.S. Lexis 5672, Larry T. Menefee, Edward Still, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
(1) The district court found that several provisions of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 were adopted for the purpose of limiting the imposition on whites of property taxes that would pay for the education of black public school students. The first question presented is: Do black public school children and their parents have standing to challenge the validity under the Equal Protection Clause of state constitutional provisions adopted for the purpose of limiting the imposition on whites of property taxes that would be used to educate black public school students?
(2) In 2004 the District Judge in Knight …
Reply Brief. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4419, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Reply Brief. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4419, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Respondent. Madigan V. Levin, 571 U.S. 1 (2013) (No. 12-872), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3187, Eric Schnapper, Harvey Levin, Edward Theobald
Brief For Respondent. Madigan V. Levin, 571 U.S. 1 (2013) (No. 12-872), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3187, Eric Schnapper, Harvey Levin, Edward Theobald
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Petitioners. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3164, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Brief For Petitioners. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3164, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED
Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she opposed discrimination forbidden by Title VII. The lower courts are divided as to how such anti-retaliation provisions apply to management officials, such as personnel or EEO officials, whose duties include assuring compliance with Title VII or implementing an employer’s anti-discrimination policy.
The question presented is: Are management officials: (1) subject to exclusion from protection under section 704(a) if their actions are within the scope of their official duties (the rule in the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits),
(2) protected under …
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2012 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2827, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2012 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2827, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, forbids a publicly traded company, a mutual fund, or “any ... contractor [or] subcontractor ... of such company [to] ... discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of” certain protected activity. (Emphasis added). The First Circuit held that under section 1514A such contractors and subcontractors, if privately-held, may retaliate against their own employees, and are prohibited only from retaliating against employees of the public companies with which they work. The question presented is: Is an employee of a privately-held contractor or subcontractor of …
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Dellinger V. Science Applications International Corp. (No. 11-598), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2153, Eric Schnapper, Zachary A. Kitts, John J. Rigby
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Dellinger V. Science Applications International Corp. (No. 11-598), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2153, Eric Schnapper, Zachary A. Kitts, John J. Rigby
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the anti-retaliation provision in section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to retaliation by an employer against a job applicant? (2) Is the private cause action provided by section 16(b) of the FLSA available to a job applicant who is retaliated against by an employer?
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Opp V. Office Of The State's Attorney Of Cook County, 565 U.S. 815 (2011) (No. 10-1163), 2011 U.S. Lexis 6893, Eric Schnapper, Brian R. Holman, Dennis H. Stefanowicz, Tara Beth Davis, Susan Bogart
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Opp V. Office Of The State's Attorney Of Cook County, 565 U.S. 815 (2011) (No. 10-1163), 2011 U.S. Lexis 6893, Eric Schnapper, Brian R. Holman, Dennis H. Stefanowicz, Tara Beth Davis, Susan Bogart
Court Briefs
QUESTION PRESENTED Five major federal employment statutes, including in this case the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, exclude certain government workers "at the policymaking level" from the definition of employees protected by those laws. The question presented is: who is a worker "on the policymaking level"?
Reply Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2135, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze
Reply Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2135, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For Petitioner, Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 Wl 3501186, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt
Brief For Petitioner, Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 Wl 3501186, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt
Court Briefs
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she engaged in certain protected activity. The questions presented are:
(1) Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, who is closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity?
(2) If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?
Supplemental Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2990, Eric Schnapper, David Suetholz
Supplemental Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2990, Eric Schnapper, David Suetholz
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Supplemental Brief For Respondent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. V. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No. 05-259), 2006 Wl 690256, Donald A. Donati, William B. Ryan, Eric Schnapper
Supplemental Brief For Respondent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. V. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No. 05-259), 2006 Wl 690256, Donald A. Donati, William B. Ryan, Eric Schnapper
Court Briefs
Respondent submits this supplemental brief pursuant to Rule 25.5 of this Court.
Under the unique circumstances of this case, the brief for the United States constitutes "intervening matter that was not available in time to be included in a brief." A majority of the government’s argument consists of an attack on the literal reading of section 704(a) advanced respondent. If this Court were to adopt the government’s narrow reading of section 704(a), it is far from certain that respondent would prevail. The original panel of the Sixth Circuit that heard this case applied a version of the "materially adverse" formulation …
Reply Brief, National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People V. New York, 409 U.S. 978 (1972) (No. 72-129), 1973 Wl 171685, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Eric Schnapper, Nathaniel R. Jones, Wiley Branton
Reply Brief, National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People V. New York, 409 U.S. 978 (1972) (No. 72-129), 1973 Wl 171685, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit Iii, Eric Schnapper, Nathaniel R. Jones, Wiley Branton
Court Briefs
No abstract provided.