Law Commons^™

Does Title Vii Prohibit Discrimination In Employment-Transfer Decisions Only If They Cause Materially Significant Disadvantages For Employees?, Anne Marie Lofaso

Law Faculty Scholarship

Case at a Glance: Petitioner Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a sergeant for the St. Louis Police Department, was transferred to another unit within the department. Muldrow sued the City of St. Louis for making a discriminatory transfer decision in alleged violation of Title VII. This case presents the question of whether Title VII prohibits discriminatory transfer decisions absent a separate court determination that the decision caused Muldrow materially significant disadvantages.

“You Don’T Bring Me Flowers Anymore”: President Clinton, Paula Jones, And Why Courts Should Expand The Definition Of “Adverse Employment Action” Under Title Vii’S Anti-Retaliation Provision, Lawrence Rosenthal

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) prohibit discrimination based on individuals’ protected characteristics. In addition to prohibiting this type of status-based discrimination, these statutes also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who assert their rights under the statutes or who assist others in asserting their rights.

Over the past several years, retaliation charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) have made up an increasingly high percentage of all charges filed with the agency. Specifically, …

Climate Discrimination, Duane Rudolph

Catholic University Law Review

This Article focuses on the coming legal plight of workers in the United States, who will likely face discrimination as they search for work outside their home states. The Article takes for granted that climate change will have forced those workers across state and international boundaries, a reality dramatically witnessed in the United States during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. During that environmental emergency (and the devastation it wrought), workers were forced across boundaries only to be violently discriminated against upon arrival in their new domiciles. Such discrimination is likely to recur, and it will threaten the livelihoods of …

Beyond Title Vii: Litigating Harassment By Nonemployees Under The Ada And Adea, Kate Bradley

Washington Law Review

Employees in the United States are protected from unlawful harassment that rises to the level of a “hostile work environment.” Federal circuits recognize that employers could be liable under Title VII when their employees experience hostile work environments because of harassment from nonemployees. However, outside of Title VII, not all federal circuits have recognized that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protect employees from hostile work environments.

As a result, employees are vulnerable with respect to age and disability-based harassment. This Comment argues that all federal circuits should allow …

Panel 5 - The Future Of Employment Law, Karla Gilbride, Geraldine Sumter, Stephen Rich, Marcia Mccormick, Michael Selmi

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

FACILITATOR: All right everyone, welcome to our last panel, “The Future of Employment Law.” I want to quickly introduce our moderator, Karla Gilbride, the co-director of the Access to Justice Project. Karla, you can take it away.

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 …

Hidden Figures: Wage Inequity And Economic Insecurity For Black Women And Other Women Of Color, Cassandra Jones Havard

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

One hundred years after women secured the right to vote, wage inequality remains prevalent in the United States. The gender wage gap, or pay inequity based solely on sex, arguably, is a measure of the current failure of full and equal participation by women in American society. The gender wage gap exists despite federal legislation designed to further wage equality. In fact, a difference as small as two cents over a lifetime costs a woman approximately $80,000. Currently, it is predicted that for a majority of white women, the pay parity will be attained between 2059–2069. However, Black women …

Transparency And Reliance In Antidiscrimination Law, Steven L. Willborn

Catholic University Law Review

All antidiscrimination laws have two structural features – transparency and reliance – that are important, even central, to their design, but have gone largely unnoticed. On transparency, some laws, like the recent salary-ban laws, attempt to prevent the employer from learning about the disfavored factor on the theory that an employer cannot rely on an unknown factor. Other laws require publication of the disfavored factor, such as salary, on the theory that it is harder to discriminate in the sunlight. Still other laws are somewhere between these two extremes. The Americans with Disabilities Act, for example, limits but does not …

Employment Law—Antidiscrimination—Falling Into The Legal Void: How Arkansas Can Protect Unpaid Interns From Discrimination And Harassment, Christina Redmann

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Can I Touch Your Hair?: Business Diversity, Slavery, Disparate Outcomes, And The Crown Act, Ashley Jones

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This comment will begin by looking at why hair in the United States is related to issues of race. This comment will then look at how businesses’ rules for appearance and hair disproportionately affect Black employees. Next, this paper will look at Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to point out how the vague language has created loopholes, which allow businesses to lawfully discriminate against people with natural hair. We will then move to explore what role some city and state governments have had in creating natural hair-safe workspaces for employees in their respective boundaries. Lastly, we …

Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims In Federal And Minnesota Courts: A Historical Perspective On The Development Of The "Severe Or Pervasive" Standard, Frances Baillon, Michelle Gibbons

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Case And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain

Seattle University Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This seems simple enough, but if an employer makes an adverse employment decision partly for an impermissible reason and partly for a permissible reason, i.e., if the employer acts with a mixed motive, has the employer acted “because of” the impermissible reason? According to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the answer is no. The Courts in Gross and Nassar held …

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Cases And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain

Faculty Scholarship

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This seems simple enough, but if an employer makes an adverse employment decision partly for an impermissible reason and partly for a permissible reason, i.e., if the employer acts with a mixed motive, has the employer acted “because of” the impermissible reason? According to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the answer is no. The Courts in Gross and Nassar held that …

Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There Is The Possible Application Of Bostock V. Clayton County, Kevin D. Brown, Lalit Khandare, Annapurna Waughray, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Theodore M. Shaw

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article discusses the issue of whether a victim of caste discrimination based on untouchability can assert a claim of intentional employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981. This article contends that there are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is a form of religious discrimination under Title VII. The question of whether caste discrimination is a form of race or national origin discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981 depends upon how the courts apply these definitions to caste discrimination based on untouchability. There are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is recognized within the concept …

Chambers V. District Of Columbia And The Future Of Title Vii, Andrew Melzer, Alok Nadig, Lindsay Marum

SLU Law Journal Online

Can blatant workplace discrimination escape the grasp of Title VII? In Chambers v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit is considering whether to revisit a rule that employment discrimination must result in “objectively tangible harm” to give rise to a Title VII claim. In this article, the authors argue that the D.C. Circuit should stay true to the language and purpose of Title VII and adopt a standard similar to the simple “treated less well” test used under the NYC Human Rights Law.

Menstruation Discrimination And The Problem Of Shadow Precedents, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A burgeoning menstrual justice movement calls attention to menstruation-related discrimination in workplaces, schools, prisons, and many other aspects of life. In recent years, a few courts have suggested such discrimination could violate Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment. Their analysis focuses on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII passed to override a Supreme Court case that had held pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination.

This essay, written for a symposium at Columbia Law School, applies my earlier research on the statutory interpretation of Congressional overrides to highlight two potential challenges this …

Maternity Rights: A Comparative View Of Mexico And The United States, Roberto Rosas

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

Women play a large role in the workplace and require additional protection during pregnancy, childbirth, and while raising children. This article compares how Mexico and the United States have approached the issue of maternity rights and benefits. First, Mexico provides eighty-four days of paid leave to mothers, while the United States provides unpaid leave for up to twelve weeks. Second, Mexico allows two thirty-minute breaks a day for breastfeeding, while the United States allows a reasonable amount of time per day to breastfeed. Third, Mexico provides childcare to most federal employees, while the United States provides daycares to a small …

Caste Discrimination And Federal Employment Law In The United States, Brian Elzweig

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Undocumented Domestic Workers: A Penumbra In The Workforce, Abigail A. Roman

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

Abstract forthcoming.

Employer Liability For Sex Harassment Through The Lens Of Restorative Justice, Emily Rees

Cleveland State Law Review

Title VII cases alleging sex harassment have become almost completely deferential to employers who have anti-harassment policies. In this Note, I discuss legal and sociological influences on this development and propose using restorative justice focused mediation to avoid rendering Title VII entirely ineffective. Mediation should only be compelled as a remedy—after a court finds that harassment occurred, but that the plaintiff cannot prove her employer knew about the harassment. Instead of dismissing these cases—where judges have already found illegal discrimination—some corrective action should be imposed on the employer for its failure to maintain a harassment-free workplace. Focusing mediation on principles …

Bostock’S Paradox: Intersections In Lgbtq Employment Rights And Private, Religious Businesses, Christopher Smith

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Thanks to the recent opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County by the United States Supreme Court regarding the protection of LGBTQ employees in the workplace, discussion has turned to how this protection relates to religious employers. Religious organizations such as churches and mosques are afforded protections thanks to an exemption found in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The role and scope of these protections in regards to private, religious (but not religion-owned) businesses has been debated as recently as 2014 in the Supreme Court. In this paper I address this issue and determine that, underneath current ruling …

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.

Wearing My Crown To Work: The Crown Act As A Solution To Shortcomings Of Title Vii For Hair Discrimination In The Workplace, Margaret Goodman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Challenges For Black Workers After 2020: Antiracism In The Gig Economy?, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

Black workers’ fortunes in the coming decades are tied to the expansion of the Gig economy, the impact of which is to destroy employee status. Because much antiracism law and policy has been transmitted to society through the medium of employment law, the disappearance of employee status should be of concern to all foes of racism. This short essay argues that Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 should be expanded to cover all forms of racist workplace conduct. Regulatory arbitrage will continue to challenge the definition of employment for the foreseeable future. It is fitting that one …

Proving Discrimination By The Text, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Employment discrimination laws make the “simple but momentous” declaration that it is illegal to deny employment on the basis of race, sex, religion, or other key aspects of identity. But when employees who have been treated unfairly turn to the courts for relief, courts rarely assess whether their claims meet the statutory standard. Instead, they funnel the evidence through a convoluted body of judge-made law known as McDonnell Douglas burden shifting.

This Article lays bare fundamental inconsistencies between the statutes’ causal language, as definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent cases, and the burden-shifting process. In Bostock v. Clayton …

The “Ultimate” Question: Are Ultimate Employment Decisions Required To Succeed On A Discrimination Claim Under Section 703(A) Of Title Vii?, Yina Cabrera

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bostock Was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, And Title Vii, Mitchell N. Berman, Guha Krishnamurthi

All Faculty Scholarship

In Bostock v. Clayton County, one of the blockbuster cases from its 2019 Term, the Supreme Court held that federal antidiscrimination law prohibits employment discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Unsurprisingly, the result won wide acclaim in the mainstream legal and popular media. Results aside, however, the reaction to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which purported to ground the outcome in a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, was more mixed. The great majority of commentators, both liberal and conservative, praised Gorsuch for what they deemed a careful and sophisticated—even “magnificent” and “exemplary”—application of textualist principles, while …

Pursuing Diversity: From Education To Employment, Amy L. Wax

All Faculty Scholarship

A central pillar of the Supreme Court’s educational affirmative-action jurisprudence is that the pedagogical benefits of being educated with students from diverse backgrounds are sufficiently “compelling” to justify some degree of race-conscious selection in university admissions.

This essay argues that the blanket permission to advance educational diversity, defensible or not, should not be extended to employment. The purpose of the workplace is not pedagogical. Rather, employees are hired and paid to do a job, deliver a service, produce a product, and complete specified tasks efficiently and effectively. Whether race-conscious practices for the purpose of creating a more diverse workforce will …

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.