Law Commons^™

Ricci V. Destefano: Diluting Disparate Impact And Redefining Disparate Treatment, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits plaintiffs to bring discrimination cases under two different theories: disparate treatment, which requires a showing of the employer’s discriminatory intent, and disparate impact, which holds the employer liable absent intent to discriminate if it uses neutral employment policies or practices that have a disparate impact on a protected group. Ricci v. DeStefano significantly affects the interpretation of both of these theories of discrimination.

Ricci adopts a restrictive interpretation of the disparate impact theory that is inconsistent with Congressional intent and purpose, and signals that intentional discrimination is more important than …

The Irrational Turn In Employment Discrimination Law: Slouching Toward A Unified Approach To Civil Rights Law, John Valery White

Scholarly Works

This Article argues that the Supreme Court's recent disparate treatment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 represent a trend toward unifying all civil rights law under an approach most closely akin to traditional equity. This trend explains the curious tension between substance and process in the Court's most recent decisions, St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks and Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing. It also explains the Court's uncommon confidence in its yet undefined notions of what constitutes discrimination on the basis of the several protected categories recognized in Title VII and related statutes. The trend toward …

Discrimination Cases In The 2000 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Compelling Arbitration Of Claims Under The Civil Rights Act Of 1866: What Congress Could Not Have Intended, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was a very special statute, designed at minimum to eliminate all "badges and incidents of slavery" and to ensure that the freed slaves would be provided with civil rights equal to those of white persons. Its enforcement depends on the availability of a neutral public system of justice. Private arbitration cannot assure these characteristics. Thus, courts should not enforce agreements to arbitrate future disputes that may arise under this statute. This Article, however, does not argue that arbitration of claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 should be prohibited altogether. Disputants who mutually …

Reinventing Reality: The Impermissible Intrusion Of After-Acquired Evidence In Title Vii Litigation, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

This Article analyzes the use of after-acquired evidence to defeat a discrimination victim's claim against her employer. The use of the Mount Healthy and Price Waterhouse mixed motives analysis in after-acquired evidence cases is misplaced because it is impossible for the permissible motive—resume fraud—to have been a factor in the adverse employment decision. Furthermore, after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it would be an improper judicial intrusion upon the power of the legislature for courts to apply mixed motives analysis to these cases. Besides the constitutional limitation on the judiciary's power created by the Civil Rights …