Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Promoting Fairness: A Proposal For A More Reasonable Standard Of Constructive Discharge In Title Vii Denial Of Promotion Cases , Richard M. Deagazio
Promoting Fairness: A Proposal For A More Reasonable Standard Of Constructive Discharge In Title Vii Denial Of Promotion Cases , Richard M. Deagazio
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The constructive discharge rule states that if intolerable working conditions associated with the employer's discrimination force the employee to resign, then the employee will be considered to have been "constructively" discharged on the date of resignation. The employee will be treated as if he or she had been fired by the employer and therefore is eligible for remedies traditionally associated with wrongful termination, such as reinstatement and backpay past the date of "discharge." If the employee has not been constructively discharged, then under the general rule the employee will only be entitled to preresignation backpay. In examples similar to this …
Stotts' Denial Of Hiring And Promotion Preferences For Nonvictims: Draining The "Spirit" From Title Vii, Mary C. Daly
Stotts' Denial Of Hiring And Promotion Preferences For Nonvictims: Draining The "Spirit" From Title Vii, Mary C. Daly
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The author questions whether the dicta in a recent Supreme Court case, Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, effectively narrow the scope of relief available under Title VII to non-victims. Specifically, the Court addressed affirmative action and the possible reparations under a Title VII employment race discrimination class action. The dicta in question appear to limit courts' ability to grant relief to "non-victims" (individuals who were not named parties in an employment discrimination suit) in the form of consent decrees or post-trial injunctive relief. The author examines Supreme Court caselaw on affirmative action, the legislative history of the 1964 Civil …
Challenges To Employment Testing Under Title Vii: Creating "Built In Headwinds" For The Civil Service Employer, Ellen Zweig
Challenges To Employment Testing Under Title Vii: Creating "Built In Headwinds" For The Civil Service Employer, Ellen Zweig
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Since the Supreme Court held in Griggs that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from using employment selection systems which are not job-related or which act as "built in headwinds" for minorities, employment tests have been subject to more challenges in courtrooms. Since Griggs, courts have presumed employment tests challenged pursuant to Title VII to be invalid once the plaintiffs establish that the tests produce an adverse impact upon minorities. However, these courts have not suggested many alternative methods of testing and those that have been suggested are generally unworkable for employers who must comply …
After Albemarle: Class-Wide Recovery Of Back Pay Under Title Vii, B. Martin Druyan
After Albemarle: Class-Wide Recovery Of Back Pay Under Title Vii, B. Martin Druyan
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides administrative and judicial remedies for victims of discrimination in employment. Employers, engaged in “an industry affecting commerce” and having fifteen or more employees who work at least twenty weeks out of the year, are subject to the statutes strictures. Unions are also subject to the statute if they have fifteen or more members, operate an office or hiring hall, and represent employees. One remedy available under Title VII is an award of back pay from the date of the alleged violation. Back pay may be defined as court-awarded compensation for …
Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964- Seniority Provisions Of Union Collective Bargaining Agreement Held Controlling Over Eeoc Affirmative Action Hiring Program. Jersey Central Power & Light Co. V. Local 327, Ibew, 508 F.2d 687 (3d Cir. 1975)., Ira E. Goldberg
Fordham Urban Law Journal
Plaintiff, Jersey Central Power & Light Company (Jersey Central), a large public utility, was economically forced to announce a series of plant wide layoffs. The collective bargaining agreement in force between Jersey Central and various unions required that layoffs be conducted in reverse order of seniority, i.e., the last person hired is the first person to be fired. A conciliation agreement among Jersey Central, the unions and the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) called for the company to begin an affirmative action program designed to increase employment opportunities for women and minority workers. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment in …