Law Commons^™

Two Conflicting Filing Periods For A Constructive Discharge Claim: Which One Is Better?, Aditi Kumar

Labor & Employment Law Forum

No abstract provided.

Essay: Understanding Employment Discrimination Litigation In China Through The Notion Of "Rights Apathy", Sheera Chan, Mimi Zou

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review

The psycho-legal concept of “rights apathy” is developed in

this Essay as an underlying factor of the very low rate of

incidence of workplace discrimination lawsuits filed in China,

despite an increasingly elaborate legal framework “on paper”

and workers’ rising awareness of their legal rights under

anti-discrimination laws. “Rights apathy” is underpinned by the

notions of “frustration” and “learned helplessness,” depicting the

indifference of workers in exercising their legal rights before a

tribunal or court. A number of institutional problems, namely

defects in existing anti-discrimination provisions, judicial

practices, and contradictions in other laws, policies, and

practices, can contribute to the ...

Something To Talk About, Joni Hersch, Jennifer Bennett Shinall

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

To avoid the appearance of sex discrimination that would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, both Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance and a common misunderstanding of the law have resulted in little or no information about family status being provided in pre-employment interviews. To investigate whether concealing family information actually improves women’s employment prospects, we conduct an original experimental study fielded on more than 3,000 subjects. Our study provides the first ever evidence that concealing personal information lowers female applicants’ hiring prospects. Subjects overwhelmingly preferred to hire candidates who provided information, regardless of content. Any ...

Labor And Employment Law At The 2014-2015 Supreme Court: The Court Devotes Ten Percent Of Its Docket To Statutory Interpretation In Employment Cases, But Rejects The Argument That What Employment Law Really Needs Is More Administrative Law, Scott A. Moss

Articles

No abstract provided.

Associational Discrimination: How Far Can It Go?, Jessica Vogele

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Subsidized Egg Freezing In Employment: Autonomy, Coercion, Or Discrimination?, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

In 2014, Apple and Facebook announced that they would provide up to $20,000 for female employees to freeze their eggs as an employment benefit. These announcements raised mixed reviews. Some applauded the decision because they believe that egg freezing may offer to women more control over their reproductive choices. Others argued that the new benefit sends the wrong message to women and that encouraging good parenting by giving better parental leave and child care policies would be more beneficial to families. Others were concerned that this “benefit” applies only to professional or managerial-class women, but may not be helpful ...

When The Customer Is King: Employment Discrimination As Customer Service, Lu-In Wang

Articles

Employers profit from giving customers opportunities to discriminate against service workers. Employment discrimination law should not, but in many ways does, allow them to get away with it. Employers are driven by self-interest to please customers, whose satisfaction is critical to business success and survival. Pleasing customers often involves cultivating and catering to their discriminatory expectations with respect to customer service — including facilitating customers’ direct discrimination against workers.

Current doctrine allows employers to escape responsibility for customers’ discrimination against workers because it takes an overly narrow view of the employment relationship. The doctrine focuses on the formal lines of authority ...

The Same-Actor Inference Of Nondiscrimination: Moral Credentialing And The Psychological And Legal Licensing Of Bias, Victor D. Quintanilla, Cheryl R. Kaiser

Articles by Maurer Faculty

One of the most egregious examples of the tension between federal employment discrimination law and psychological science is the federal common law doctrine known as the same-actor inference.

When originally elaborated by the Fourth Circuit in Proud v. Stone, the same-actor doctrine applied only when an “employee was hired and fired by the same person within a relatively short time span.” In the two decades since, the doctrine has widened and broadened in scope. It now subsumes many employment contexts well beyond hiring and firing, to scenarios in which the “same person” entails different groups of decision makers, and the ...