Law Commons^™

Evidentiary Inequality, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

Federal employment discrimination law is rife with evidentiary inequality. Courts allow employers to draw from a broad palette of evidence to defend against discrimination claims, while highly restricting the facts from which plaintiffs can prove their claims. This Article draws from hundreds of cases to show how judges favor the employer's evidence and disfavor the plaintiff's evidence across multiple dimensions, such as time, witnesses, documents, relevance, and reliability. Judges have created a host of named doctrines that severely restrict the evidence plaintiffs are allowed to use to prove their discrimination claims. At the same time, a host of unnamed, and …

Co-Worker Evidence In Court, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

This symposium explores ways to empower workers. Many employment laws rely on workers filing private rights of action to enforce the underlying substantive law. Unfortunately, when workers file these claims in court, courts often do not allow them to rely on evidence from their co-workers. While courts regularly allow employers to submit co-worker evidence of a plaintiff's poor performance or lack of qualifications, they often diminish or exclude a plaintiff's co-worker evidence that the plaintiff performed well or possessed desired qualifications. This Article identifies and explores this evidentiary inequality. It argues that efforts to empower workers must include the power …

The Emerging Statutory Proximate Cause Doctrine, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

The year 2011 marked the birth of a new idea. The United States decided Staub v. Proctor Hospital and for the first time invoked common law proximate cause in the context of federal employment discrimination law. It is rare in jurisprudence to be present at the birth of an idea and then see that idea develop over its first decade. This Article charts the emerging proximate cause doctrine from its early days as a baby doctrine. Now, the doctrine is pre-adolescent, with all of the changes and turmoil that phrase entails.

Killing The Cat's Paw, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

In federal employment discrimination law, courts apply the label "cat's paw" to describe certain cases. Judge Richard Posner first used the term cat's paw in the context of federal discrimination jurisprudence, invoking a fable about an enterprising monkey who tricks a cat into getting hot chestnuts from a fire.' As the cat removes the hot chestnuts from the fire, the monkey eats them, leaving the cat with nothing except burnt paws.

In its traditional form, a cat's paw case is one in which a biased individual passes along negative information about a worker to an "unbiased" decisionmaker. The "unbiased" decisionmaker …

Caught By The Cat's Paw, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

Federal employment discrimination law is enamored with court-created doctrines with catchy names. A fairly recent addition to the canon is the concept of the "cat's paw," formally recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Staub v. Proctor Hospital. With its name coined by Judge Richard Posner and drawn from a fable, the concept of cat's paw has taken ground quickly, discussed in hundreds of cases. The Supreme Court recognized the cat's paw theory in a case where a hospital fired a worker. The person who made the ultimate decision did not have impermissible bias. However, her decision was influenced by …

Harassment: A Separate Claim?, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

In 2017, media attention focused on sexual harassment as victims reported harassment and assault as part of the #MeToo movement. Although many of the accounts focused on sexualized treatment, this treatment often occurred within a broader context of unequal treatment, such as pay inequality and the disproportionately low promotion rate of women into leadership positions. For decades, legal scholars have noted the interplay between broader work constructs and harassment.

This Article argues that viewing harassment as a separate, standalone claim likely misinterprets Title VII and the Supreme Court's jurisprudence surrounding harassment. Unfortunately, this error represents the dominant view among federal …

In Defense Of Mcdonnell Douglas: The Domination Of Title Vii By The At-Will Employment Doctrine, Chuck Henson

Faculty Publications

The purpose of this Article is to describe the actual relationship between the Doctrine and Title VII as implemented in the Court's disparate treatment decisions. Title VII and the Doctrine are not separate forces warring with each other. The at-will employment doctrine guided the Court's Title VII disparate treatment jurisprudence, giving the maximum possible latitude to employers because that was the Eighty-eighth Congress's intent.

A Religious Organization’S Autonomy In Matters Of Self-Governance: Hosanna-Tabor And The First Amendment, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

In Hosanna-Tabor, a teacher suing her employer, a church-based school, alleged retaliation for having asserted rights under a discrimination statute. The School raised the “ministerial exception,” which prohibits ministers from suing their religious employer. The Court held the exception was constitutionally required. Before giving the facts that convinced it that this teacher was a “minister,” the Court had to distinguish the leading case of Employ. Div. v. Smith. Plaintiffs in Smith held jobs as counselors at a drug rehabilitation center. They were fired for illegal drug use (peyote), and later denied unemployment compensation. The Native American Church ingests peyote during …

Title Vii Works - That's Why We Don't Like It, Chuck Henson

Faculty Publications

In response to the universal belief that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not fulfilling its purpose, this Article presents a different perspective on the reality of this federal employment discrimination law. Title VII is fulfilling the purpose of the Congress that created it. The purpose was not the eradication of all discrimination in employment. The purpose was to balance the prohibition of the most obvious forms of discrimination with the preservation of as much employer decision-making latitude as possible. Moreover, the seminal Supreme Court decision, McDonnell Douglas v. Green, accurately implemented this balance. This Article …