Law Commons^™

Patterson And Civil Rights: What Rough Beast Slouches Towards Bethlehem To Be Born?, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Contrary to its assertions, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Patterson decision marks a stark departure from the federal courts' former practice of according Congressional civil rights enactments a broad reading to effectuate their remedial purposes. Indeed, Patterson offers an exceedingly narrow interpretation of this nation's oldest civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

In addition to its effect on the scope and application of § 1981, Patterson must be read in conjunction with several other decisions issued during the same term that limit—indeed retreat from—the application of civil rights laws designed to restore both lost opportunities and …

Civil Rights In Employment: The New Generation, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

In July 1989, Title VII was twenty-five years old. It is generally assumed that the first twenty-five years have seen significant changes in the economic opportunities available to America’s minorities and women. But with the rise to power of the Reagan appointees, the Supreme Court is clearly fashioning a new approach to issues of civil rights in employment. This article analyzes the new Court’s emerging themes and proposes a congressional response.

The Supreme Court's Denial Of Reasonable Attorney's Fees To Prevailing Civil Rights Plaintiffs, Jean R. Sternlight

Scholarly Works

The Supreme Court, through a series of recent decisions has effectively overridden Congress’ dictate that prevailing civil rights plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The solution to the current crisis lies not in reluctant court-appointed attorneys, but rather in a broad-based reform of the law regarding court-awarded attorney’s fees.

This article argues that only action by Congress will suffice to override the Supreme Court’s erroneous ruling and ensure just compensation for civil rights attorneys. Absent such legislation, it seems virtually certain that both the quantity and quality of civil rights litigation will continue to decrease. Fewer …

Watson V. Ft. Worth Bank And Trust: The Changing Face Of Disparate Impact, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitutes this country’s first serious commitment to eradicating the enormous economic disadvantages caused by hundreds of years of racial and gender-related prejudice. But there is also cause for concern. While members of once excluded groups have entered the mid-level workforce, most have not progressed to top-level positions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the elimination of barriers to mid-level employment has spotlighted the unique barriers to equal employment in top-level jobs. Title VII’s capacity to deal effectively with these barriers will be its major challenge for the next quarter-century. Its success will depend, in …

Rationality - And The Irrational Underinclusiveness Of The Civil Rights Laws, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Congress has enacted a series of civil rights laws designed to protect individuals from public an private forms of irrational discrimination. To be lawful, such civil rights statutes must conform with the definition of rationality required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, in one fashion, these statutes are as irrational as the behavior they seek to control. The statutes protect only certain classes of individuals in limited instances. This article argues that the existing civil rights laws, although integral to a free society, are but a first step. The statute will never be fully rational, never completely fair, until …

Mutable Characteristics And The Definition Of Discrimination Under Title Vii, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial, religious, gender, ethnic, and color discrimination in employment. In most instances the courts interpret the statute very broadly. However, a line of cases holds that discrimination predicated on a forbidden criterion coupled with a ‘mutable’—easily altered—characteristic does not constitute a violation of Title VII. This Article attempts to debunk the ‘mutable’ characteristic doctrine by discerning a general definition of discrimination under Title VII and applying that definition to demonstrate that mutability analysis contradicts the letter and spirit of the law.

Book Review, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

The Burden of Brown by Raymond Wolters is a long book with a very short message: integration is bad, but desegregation is not. The distinction between the two is crucial to Wolters's analysis. Desegregation is the prohibition of officially sanctioned separation of the races. Integration, on the other hand, is the compelled mixing of the races for the sake of mixing. The "burden" of Brown v. Board of Education, according to Wolters, is that the Supreme Court has blurred this distinction and erroneously requires integration instead of merely prohibiting segregation. Wolters's thesis is that Brown had two prongs: one …