Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

PDF

1993

Civil Rights and Discrimination

Mercer University School of Law

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Goldberg V. Town Of Rocky Hill: Second Circuit Refuses To Extend Absolute Immunity To Municipal Defendant, Nancy J. Bladich Jul 1993

Goldberg V. Town Of Rocky Hill: Second Circuit Refuses To Extend Absolute Immunity To Municipal Defendant, Nancy J. Bladich

Mercer Law Review

In Goldberg v. Town of Rocky Hill, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that municipalities sued under The Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, were not entitled to absolute immunity from suit. Kenneth Goldberg brought suit against the town of Rocky Hill, Connecticut ("the town"), its mayor, town manager, and councilmen in their official capacities, claiming he was wrongfully discharged. The town moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) claiming absolute immunity from suit. The district court denied the motion holding that the town was not entitled to absolute immunity. The town then brought …


Wallace V. Dunn Construction Co.: Defining The Role Of After-Acquired Evidence In Federal Employment Discrimination Suits, Hugh Lawson Iii Jul 1993

Wallace V. Dunn Construction Co.: Defining The Role Of After-Acquired Evidence In Federal Employment Discrimination Suits, Hugh Lawson Iii

Mercer Law Review

In Wallace v. Dunn Construction Co. the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals faced an issue of first impression in the circuit: the role of after-acquired evidence in actions arising under federal employment discrimination statutes, namely Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Pay Act. The court held that after-acquired evidence cases in which an employer discovers evidence constituting a permissible reason for discharging an employee after that employee has already been discharged for an impermissible reason are distinguishable from mixed-motive cases in which an employer discharges an employee for several reasons, some permissible and …


Back To The Future: The Application Of The 1991 Civil Rights Act To Pre-Existing Claims, Jennifer Jolly Ryan May 1993

Back To The Future: The Application Of The 1991 Civil Rights Act To Pre-Existing Claims, Jennifer Jolly Ryan

Mercer Law Review

On November 21, 1991, President Bush signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (the "1991 Act"). After two years of heated debate and compromise, Congress passed a comprehensive civil rights package that promises to strengthen and expand Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 18668 ("Section 1981"), largely by restoring anti-discrimination laws to their pre-1989 status as well as by instituting certain procedural changes for the courts to follow.

The 1991 Act provides access to compensatory and punitive damages, as well as trial by jury, …


Luddington V. Indiana Bell Telephone: The 1991 Civil Rights Act Is No Help In Pending Cases, William Wright Banks Jr. Mar 1993

Luddington V. Indiana Bell Telephone: The 1991 Civil Rights Act Is No Help In Pending Cases, William Wright Banks Jr.

Mercer Law Review

In Luddington v. Indiana Bell Telephone, the Seventh Circuit held that the Civil Rights Act of 1991 ("the Act") does not apply to suits pending on the effective date of the Act. In so holding, the court faced conflicts between Supreme Court precedent on the issue of when statutes become effective.

The Supreme Court cases deciding whether statutes are to be applied retroactively have been said to be "'in irreconcilable contradiction.' " In Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, the Supreme Court stated that statutes are presumed to apply to cases pending when the statute becomes …