Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Employment Discrimination As A Means For Social Cleansing, E. Gary Spitko
Don't Ask, Don't Tell: Employment Discrimination As A Means For Social Cleansing, E. Gary Spitko
Faculty Publications
In December 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010,” which provided for repeal of the policy prohibiting gay people from serving openly in the military, after consideration of a Department of Defense review on the implementation of such a repeal. This article examines the history of the exclusion of openly gay people from military service in the United States from the early twentieth century up until the time of the repeal. The author concludes from this review that the dominant purpose of the military’s exclusion of openly gay people was to …
A Religious Organization’S Autonomy In Matters Of Self-Governance: Hosanna-Tabor And The First Amendment, Carl H. Esbeck
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
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 …
Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Employment Discrimination, Joseph Seiner
Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Employment Discrimination, Joseph Seiner
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court has failed to provide any substantive guidance on when punitive damages are appropriate in employment discrimination cases since it issued its seminal decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n over twelve years ago. The Court has recently expanded its punitive damages jurisprudence in the high-profile decisions of Philip Morris USA v. Williams and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. While these cases dramatically altered the way exemplary relief is analyzed in civil cases, the extent to which these decisions apply in the workplace context remains unclear. Surprisingly, there has been almost no academic literature to date explaining how …
Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone
Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone
Faculty Publications
This Article traces the genesis of this misguided doctrine, its proliferation, and it’s many flaws. It explains what the doctrine has come to mean and which facets of a comment can render it “stray” as a matter of law. Part II evaluates this unwieldy and untenable doctrine and its haphazard and misguided application over the past two decades. Specifically, it was never intended to be a formal doctrine. As employed by courts, the term “stray” means too many things and is too ambiguous for the doctrine to be coherent or effective. Moreover, courts ascribe varying degrees of significance to the …