Law Commons^™

Employment Discrimination Law In Perspective: Three Concepts Of Equality, John J. Donohue Iii

Michigan Law Review

The essay begins with a discussion of which groups deserve the protection of employment discrimination law. With the protected categories of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act etched into the American consciousness, many might consider the appropriate categories to be fully self-evident. But of course, they are not, and many jurisdictions continue to struggle over whether certain dispreferred groups merit the law's solicitude.

Structuralist And Cultural Domination Theories Meet Title Vii: Some Contemporary Influences, Martha Chamallas

Michigan Law Review

This essay first looks at three important theoretical approaches - motivational, structural, and cultural - that mark the scholarly discourses on workplace equality since 1965. The motivational or individual choice theory is well established and has dominated legal discourse throughout this period. I concentrate in this essay on the other two visions, dating structuralist accounts from the mid1970s and cultural domination theories from the mid-1980s.

Title Vii And The Complex Female Subject, Kathryn Abrams

Michigan Law Review

One strength of Title VII has been its capacity to accommodate the changing conceptions of discrimination and the self-conceptions of subject groups. In the first decades of its enforcement, advocates have raised - and courts have endorsed - a range of contrasting conceptions in order to broaden the employment opportunities of protected groups. This flexibility is particularly evident with respect to women.

After exploring recent doctrinal efforts to respond to complex claimants, I address these questions and assess the prospects of change. Although the unitary or categorical notions of group identity under which Title VII has historically been enforced might …

Only Girls Wear Barrettes: Dress And Appearance Standards, Community Norms, And Workplace Equality, Katharine T. Bartlett

Michigan Law Review

In this essay I study both the judicial rationales and the scholarly criticisms thereof, agreeing with critics that community norms are too discriminatory to provide a satisfactory benchmark for defining workplace equality, but also questioning the usual implications of this critique. Critics assume that it is possible, and desirable, to evaluate dress and appearance rules without regard to the norms and expectations of the community - that is, according to stable or universal versions of equality that are uninfected by community norms. I question this assumption, arguing that equality, no less than other legal concepts, cannot transcend the norms of …

The Public Policy Exclusion And Insurance For Intentional Employment Discrimination, Sean W. Gallagher

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that courts choosing to apply the public policy exclusion to insurance for intentional employment discrimination liability should nevertheless permit employers to enforce insurance covering negligent supervision liability and liability imputed to an employer as a result of the intentional discrimination committed by its employees. Part I establishes a framework for understanding the cases in which courts have invoked public policy to refuse enforcement of insurance contracts, arguing that the rationale behind the public policy exclusion is utilitarian and that courts refuse to enforce insurance for liability arising out of intentional wrongdoing on the grounds that such insurance …

Employment Discrimination: Recent Developments In The Supreme Court (Symposium: The Supreme Court And Local Government Law: The 1992-93 Term), Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

At a symposium entitled, “The Supreme Court and Local Government Law; The 1992/93 Term”, Professor Eileen Kaufman spoke about the cases involving employment discrimination that were decided during that particular Term, Hazen Paper Company v. Biggins and St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks. While Hazen is an age discrimination case and St. Mary's is a Title VII case, they can be viewed as companion cases which serve to explain what an employment discrimination plaintiff must now establish when attempting to prove disparate treatment by indirect evidence. By way of preview, suffice it to say that plaintiff's task has been made …

Garcia V. Spun Steak Co.: The Ninth Circuit Requires That Title Vii Plaintiffs Prove The Adverse Effect Of A Challenged English-Only Workplace Rule, Dan Clawson

Seattle University Law Review

Although the Spun Steak decision recognizes that English-only rules may impact Title VII in some circumstances, the court held that an employer's good-faith imposition of these rules on fully bilingual employees does not violate Title VII. Section II of this Comment presents an overview of the substantive law and the enforcement mechanisms of Title VII. Section III outlines the development of federal discrimination law regarding English-only rules. Section IV examines the Spun Steak decision, and Section V analyzes the implications of this decision and its effect on discrimination law in the Ninth Circuit.

A Standard For Punitive Damages Under Title Vii, Judith J. Johnson

Journal Articles

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case who alleges intentional discrimination may recover punitive damages if she demonstrates that her employer engaged in the discriminatory practice with "malice" or "reckless indifference" to federally protected rights. To prove a case of disparate treatment under Title VII, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the trier of fact that her employer intended to discriminate against her. In other words, to be liable in a disparate treatment case, the employer has to specifically intend to treat the plaintiff differently based, for example, on her sex. If …