Law Commons^™

Is Title Vii > Ix?: Does Title Vii Preempt Title Ix Sex Discrimination Claims In Higher Ed Employment?, Mckenzie Miller

Catholic University Law Review

Across all job sectors, women working full-time earned about 80 percent of what men earned in 2016. Within higher education this gender gap persists in salary, hiring, promotions, and other aspects of academic employment. Professors can seemingly attempt to remedy this under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or Title IX of the Education Amendments, both of which prohibit sex discrimination in higher education. Circuits, however, have split as to whether Title VII preempts Title IX in actions for employment discrimination in higher education.

The Third Circuit revived this split in Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, and …

Split Over Sex: Federal Circuits And Executive Agencies Split Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination Under Title Vii, Darria Turner

Catholic University Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sex. Since its enactment, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has definitively stated whether sex discrimination based on sexual orientation is protected under Title VII. Though the judicial interpretation of sex has evolved, courts have routinely held that the protections of Title VII do not extend to claims based on sexual orientation discrimination. As three circuits faced these claims, a split was created in the circuits as well as in the two agencies tasked with the enforcement of Title VII. This …

Cat Scratch Fever: The Spread Of The Cat’S Paw Doctrine In The Second Circuit, Crystal Jackson-Kaloz

Catholic University Law Review

The phrase “cat’s paw” comes from an Aesop’s fable and has been used to define a person used by another as a tool or a scapegoat. The phrase was coined and injected into employment discrimination law by Judge Richard Posner in Shager v. Upjohn Co. and later adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital. In Staub, the Supreme Court held that an employer could be liable for an adverse employment decision that was based on the recommendation of a supervisor who possessed a discriminatory or retaliatory bias against the adversely affected employee. However, the …