Law Commons^™

Rights For Developmentally Disabled Citizens: A Perspective For The 80s, H. Rutherford Turnbull Iii

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Burdens Of Pleading And Proof In Discrimination Cases: Toward A Theory Of Procedural Justice, Robert Belton

Vanderbilt Law Review

If the national policy of eliminating discrimination is to be achieved, the courts--to whom the major responsibility for effectuating this goal is delegated--must establish a coherent framework for allocating the burdens of pleading and proof that provides "a sensible, orderly way to evaluate the evidence in light of common experience as it bears on the critical question of discrimination."' The purpose of this Article, therefore, is to propose such a coherent approach to the allocation of the burdens of pleading and proof in discrimination cases. Towards this end, part II of the Article examines the definitional and operational effect of …

Compensatory Damages In Federal Fair Housing Cases, Robert G. Schwemm

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The federal fair housing laws became effective in 1968. Since then, courts have often awarded damages to victims of housing discrimination, but their decisions have provided little guidance for assessing the amount of such awards. There is a great range of awards, with some courts awarding only nominal damages of $1 and others setting awards of over $20,000. Compounding the problem is the difficulty of measuring the principal element of damages claimed by most plaintiffs in fair housing cases, noneconomic emotional harm or other forms of intangible injury.

Rarely is the basis for the amount of the court's award satisfactorily …

Affirmative Action And Reverse Discrimination: Where Do We Stand Now, Kenneth Galchus

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Title Vi And The Constitution: A Regulatory Model For Defining ‘Discrimination’, Charles F. Abernathy

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In recent years confusion has surrounded the proper interpretation of title V1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance. Some courts have held that the title prohibits only intentional discrimination. Others have held that it proscribes actions having discriminatory effects as well, an interpretation that imposes a great burden on federal grantees. The Supreme Court heightened the confusion when five individual justices in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke questioned the propriety of the Court's earlier adoption of an "effects" test for title VI. Professor Abernathy argues that this …