Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee
The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Freedom of religion in the workplace has recently become a hot topic with regards to whether U.S. or state laws (mainly contraceptive care and treatment of same-sex, married employees’ spouses) must accommodate certain employer’s religious beliefs or else violate the employer’s constitutional right. However, before this recent employer-centric topic came to light, the main focus was on employees and to what extent employers must accommodate an employee’s religion via Title VII. Most, if not all, academic literature has argued an employer’s duty to accommodate employee’s religion is too weak under Title VII and should thus be increased to the significant …
The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa
The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Smith v. Bray, the Seventh Circuit, on a case of first impression, determined that supervisors with retaliatory motives can and should be individually liable under section 1981 when they cause the employer to retaliate against an employee. This article argues against the Seventh Circuit’s holding for four reasons. First, courts are required to analyze section 1981 the same way they analyze Title VII, and Title VII does not allow for individual supervisor liability. Second, the Seventh Circuit justified its decision based on a flawed comparison between section 1981 and section 1983, a similar but distinct civil rights statute. Third, …
An Industry Missing Minorities: The Disparate Impact Of The Securities And Exchange Commission's Fingerprinting Rule, Kelly Noonan
An Industry Missing Minorities: The Disparate Impact Of The Securities And Exchange Commission's Fingerprinting Rule, Kelly Noonan
Chicago-Kent Law Review
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") recently asserted that the use of criminal background checks as an employment screening tool may have a disparate impact on African Americans and Hispanics, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC and some private claimants have even filed lawsuits against employers claiming disparate impact violations based on statistics that show African Americans and Hispanics are considerably more likely to have criminal records than other racial groups. Yet, certain federal regulatory agencies require participants in their industries to subject employees to criminal background checks as a condition of …
Discrimination Outside Of The Office: Where To Draw The Walls Of The Workplace For A "Hostile Work Environment" Claim Under Title Vii, Douglas R. Garmager
Discrimination Outside Of The Office: Where To Draw The Walls Of The Workplace For A "Hostile Work Environment" Claim Under Title Vii, Douglas R. Garmager
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer . . . to discriminate against any individual" on the basis of sex. Accordingly, in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, the Supreme Court recognized that sex discrimination in employment can give rise to a hostile work environment claim under Title VII. The scope of a hostile work environment claim has not been interpreted uniformly by the lower courts, however, as a circuit split exists today over whether conduct occurring outside the workplace is relevant to a hostile work environment claim. …