Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Retaliation And The Reasonable Person, Sandra F. Sperino
Retaliation And The Reasonable Person, Sandra F. Sperino
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
When a worker complains about discrimination, federal law is supposed to protect that worker from later retaliation. Recent scholarly attention focuses on how courts limit retaliation claims by narrowly framing the causation inquiry. A larger threat to retaliation law is developing in the lower courts. Courts are declaring a wide swath of conduct as insufficiently serious to constitute retaliation.
Many courts hold that it is legal for an employer to threaten to fire a worker, to place the worker on administrative leave, or to negatively evaluate the worker because she complained about discriminatory conduct. Even if the worker has evidence …
Fakers And Floodgates, Sandra F. Sperino
Fakers And Floodgates, Sandra F. Sperino
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
There has always been the possibility of judicial skepticism about employment discrimination claims. Recently, the Supreme Court made this skepticism explicit. In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the Supreme Court expressed concern about fake claims and floodgates of litigation. It then used these arguments to tip the substantive law against retaliation claims. This article responds to this explicit skepticism about discrimination claims. First, it shows that the Court created reasons to limit retaliation claims that are not tied to congressional intent. Second, the factual claims that the Court makes are not grounded in evidence, and available information …
The Disappearing Dilemma: Why Agency Principles Should Now Take Center Stage In Retaliation Cases, Sandra F. Sperino
The Disappearing Dilemma: Why Agency Principles Should Now Take Center Stage In Retaliation Cases, Sandra F. Sperino
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
In Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad v. White, the Supreme Court soundly rejected the idea that the plaintiff must establish that conduct rose to the level of an adverse employment action to constitute retaliation under Title VII. This Article posits that, in an effort to square Burlington with other Title VII agency jurisprudence, the courts will be required to re-import the concept of tangible employment action into decisions regarding whether an employer is vicariously liable for actions committed by supervisors.
While the lower courts appear to recognize that agency issues come into play when retaliation is conducted by co-workers, …