Law Commons^™

Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry

Washington Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …

More Than Fifty Years After The Enactment Of Federal Laws Forbidding Discrimination In Pay, The Wage Disparity Based On Sex Continues: Focusing On The Circuit Courts’ Differing Interpretations Of “Factors Other Than Sex”, Audrey K. Hurt

Mississippi College Law Review

The broad scope of this fourth affirmative defense available to employers under the EPA and Title VII allows for inconsistency in its interpretation and is responsible, at least in part, for the continued existence of wage discrimination. Without a prescribed means of application— specifically, a stricter means of application—employers are more readily absolved from liability under the FOTS defense. The best solution to this problem is for Congress to adopt a more stringent approach to the FOTS defense under the Equal Pay Act of 1963—an approach which would apply to Title VII, as well. However, with little headway being made …

Challenges In Bringing Gender Equity Into The Workplace: Addressing Common Concerns Women Have When Deciding To Hold Employers Accountable For Gender Discrimination, Siobhan Klassen

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

A Textuary Ray Of Hope For Lgbtq+ Workers: Does Title Vii Mean What It Says?, Eduardo Juarez

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Title Vii And The Unenvisaged Case: Is Anti-Lgbtq Discrimination Unlawful Sex Discrimination, Ronald Turner

Indiana Law Journal

As discussed herein, courts and individual judges recognizing or not finding actionable Title VII anti-LGBTQ14 claims have offered different rationales in support of their conflicting positions, including three justifications discussed in this project: (1) the meaning of Title VII’s “because of sex” prohibition, (2) the Supreme Court’s and circuit courts’ construction of the “because of sex” provision in the context of sex stereotyping and gender nonconformity discrimination as applied to the anti- LGBTQ question, and (3) associational discrimination theory. Claim-recognizing jurists have looked to Title VII’s text, Supreme Court and circuit court precedent, and the views of the Equal Employment …

Brief Of Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. Francois, And Eric Schnapper As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Peterson V. Linear Controls Incorporated, No. 18-1401 (U.S. Supreme Court June 6, 2019), Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. François

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

In Title VII disparate-treatment, employment-discrimination cases, the term “adverse employment action” originally developed as judicial shorthand for the statute’s text, which broadly prohibits any discriminatory conduct by an employer against an employee based on the employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). But what started simply as shorthand has taken on a life of its own and now improperly limits the statute’s reach. The Fifth Circuit’s version of the adverse-employment-action rule stands out as especially improper: Only an “ultimate employment decision”—a refusal to hire, a firing, a demotion, or the like—constitutes impermissible discrimination.

In this …

Clarifying Stereotyping, Kerri Lynn Stone

Kerri Stone

This Article addresses the largely undefined, misunderstood-yet-often-resorted-to concept of “stereotyping” as a basis for, or sufficient evidence of, liability for employment discrimination. Since, the concept’s genesis in Supreme Court jurisprudence in 1989, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, plaintiffs have proffered remarks alleged to be tinged with, or indicating the presence of, impermissible stereotypes as evidence of discrimination based on protected-class status – be that sex, race, color, religion, or national origin – in contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Article examines the language in Hopkins and its precise mandates and guidance for lower courts. It …

Speaking Of Workplace Harassment: A First Amendment Push Toward A Status-Blind Statute Regulating "Workplace Bullying", Jessica R. Vartanian

Maine Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes discrimination in employment unlawful, but only based on certain suspect classes: race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Courts have interpreted the statute to ban workplace harassment in this same limited fashion, refusing to recognizg harassment claims based on sexual orientation or any other unspecified classification.Although Congress may regulate in this selective manner consistent with equal protection, workplace harassment differs from other forms of discrimination proscribed under Title VII in one very important respect—workplace harassment is often achieved through an array of expression traditionally protected under the First Amendment

Blind Justice: The Need To Introduce Diverse Perspectives Into Our Legal System, Edward H. Richardson

University of Baltimore Law Review

Peggy Young was finally pregnant. This was the third time that she attempted in vitro fertilization. The first time, in 2005, the procedure was successful, but Young suffered a miscarriage. The second attempt at in vitro fertilization, in February 2006, failed. The third round, in July of 2006, was a success. Each time that Young underwent an in vitro fertilization attempt, she requested, and received, a leave of absence from her job at United Parcel Service (UPS).

But what should have been a joyous occasion-a pregnancy resulting in the birth of Young's daughter Triniti- turned into a battle with UPS …

Why Title Vii's Participation Clause Needs To Be Broadly Interpreted To Protect Those Involved In Internal Investigations, May M. Mansour

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that this narrow interpretation of the statute is contrary to the intention and aim of Title VII and, in turn, should be interpreted more broadly. Part I of this Note gives a brief explanation of the meaning and purpose of Title VII's anti-retaliation provision. Part II focuses on some of the cases that have limited the application of the participation clause to employees who are involved in formal EEOC proceedings. In particular, it focuses on the most recent Second Circuit case, Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc., to examine the dangers presented by such a limited …

International Law - Employment Discrimination. Japanese Corporation Formed Under United States Law Must Comply With Terms Of Title Vii Of The Civil Rights Act Of 1964. Avagliano V. Sumitumo Shoji America, Inc., - U.S. -, 102 S. Ct. 2374 (1982)., Henry Cyrus

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

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 …

Labor Unions And Title Vii: A Bit Player At The Creation Looks Back, Theodore St. Antoine

Book Chapters

During the debates over what became Title VII (Equal Employment Opportunity) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I was the junior partner of the then General Counsel of the AFL-CIO, J. Albert Woll. There were only three of us in the firm. The middle partner, Robert C. Mayer, handled the business affairs of the Federation and our other union clients. Bob was also the son-in-law of George Meany, president of the AFL-CIO, which gave us a unique access to Meany’s thinking. The Federation had only one in-house lawyer, Associate General Counsel Thomas Everett Harris. Tom was an aristocratic Southerner …

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Comments On The Agency And Its Role In Employment Discrimination Law, Mary Kathryn Lynch

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Sexual Harassment And Labor Arbitration, Susan A. Fitzgibbon

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination In The United States In 1989: Revisions Or A Pause, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Citizenship, Aliengage, And Ethnic Origin Discrimination In Employment Under The Law Of The United States, Mack A. Player

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Equality And The European Union, Elizabeth F. Defeis

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

"That Gear Stick Is Not Your Husband's P----." Why The Dissent In Vance V. Ball State University Got It Right, And A Comparison Of The Law Of Employer Vicarious Liability For Sexual Harassment In The United States And South Africa, Justin A. Behravesh

Justin A. Behravesh

This article provides unique critical analysis of the United States Supreme Court's June 2013 decision of Vance v. Ball State University, by comparing that decision to recent South African common law and statutory developments. I argue that Vance's redefinition of what constitutes a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability will have devastating effect on working women in the United States. Ultimately using South African law as a model framework, I conclude that the factors that should trigger vicarious liability should be based on policy concerns, not arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a "supervisor."

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Debord V. Mercy Health System Of Kansas, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2664 (2014) (No. 13-1118), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1120, Eric Schnapper, Mark A. Buchanan

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer to retaliate against any employee because that worker "opposed" unlawful discrimination.

The question presented is:

Does section 704(a) prohibit retaliation against a worker because of the worker's statements:

(1) only when the statements are made to the worker's own employer or to federal or state anti-discrimination agencies (the rule in the Tenth and Fourth Circuits), or (2) also when the worker's statements are made to any other person (the rule in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits)?

The Tort Label, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Courts and commentators often label federal discrimination statutes as torts. Since the late 1980s, the courts increasingly applied tort concepts to these statutes. This Article discusses how courts placed employment discrimination law within the organizational umbrella of tort law without examining whether the two areas share enough theoretical and doctrinal affinities.

While discrimination statutes are torts in some general sense that they do not arise out of criminal law and are not solely contractual, it is far from clear that these statutes are enough like traditional torts to justify the reflexive and automatic use of tort law. Employment discrimination statutes …

Let's Pretend Discrimination Is A Tort, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In the past decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly invoked tort common law to interpret federal discrimination statutes. During this same time period, the Supreme Court increasingly invoked textualism as the appropriate methodology for interpreting these statutes. One immediate effect of these two trends - tortification and textualism - is to restrict discrimination law by tightening causal standards.

This Article explores how interpreting discrimination statutes through the lenses of tort law and textualism can expand, rather than restrict, discrimination law. It assumes that courts will continue to characterize discrimination statutes as torts and as deriving from the common law, despite …

Torts And Civil Rights Law: Migration And Conflict: Symposium Introduction, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Curiously, the connection between civil rights and civil wrongs has not been a topic that has captivated the attention of large numbers of legal scholars over the years. The distance that has developed between the two fields likely reflects their placement on opposite sides of the public-private divide, with Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes forming part of public law, while torts is a classic, private law subject. To compound the division, both subjects are to some extent still under-theorized. Employment discrimination scholarship is often caught up in the process of analyzing the doctrinal implications of the latest Supreme Court …

Is The Antidiscrimination Project Being Ended?, Michael J. Zimmer

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

Up Or Out And Into The Supreme Court: A Forecast For Hishon V. King And Spalding , Linda Randlett Kollar

Pepperdine Law Review

The author presents an extensive analysis of Title VII in an effort to forecast the forthcoming Supreme Court decision of Hishon v. King and Spalding. Included are the issues presented to the Court, the legislative history of Title VII, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, and a historical inquiry of the applicable decisions of the Burger Court. Although the outcome of the case has yet to be decided, the author's informed prediction will guide commentaries in the future.

The Cost Of Non-Compensable Workplace Harm, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

This essay briefly addresses the limited fashion in which Title VII remedies sex discrimination in the workplace. Those limitations fall into three broad categories. The first encompasses how courts have applied procedural rules to Title VII claims. The second involves Title VII's explicit limitation on its coverage. The third includes substantive limitations that courts have placed on causes of action that are clearly covered by Title VII. This essay addresses those categories in turn.

Harmless Amusement Or Sexual Harassment: The Reasonableness Of The Reasonable Woman Standard, Penny L. Cigoy

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Discrimination Cases In The 2000 Term, Eileen Kaufman

Eileen Kaufman

No abstract provided.

From Wards Cove To Ricci: Struggling Against The Built-In Headwinds Of A Skeptical Court, Melissa Hart

Publications

When the Supreme Court in 1971 first recognized disparate impact as a legal theory under Title VII, the Court explained that the "absence of discriminatory intent does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as ‘built-in headwinds’ for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability." Forty years later, it is the built-in headwinds of a Supreme Court skeptical of - perhaps even hostile to - the goals of disparate impact theory that pose the greatest challenge to continued movement toward workplace equality. The essay examines the troubled trajectory that disparate impact law has taken in the …

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 …