Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Animus (1)
- Bias (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Disparate impact (1)
- Disparate treatment (1)
-
- Double Jeopardy (1)
- Dual Sovereignty (1)
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Equal employment (1)
- FMLA (1)
- Family leave (1)
- Gender (1)
- Inequality (1)
- Labor (1)
- Law (1)
- Pregnancy discrimination (1)
- Race discrimination (1)
- Sex discrimination (1)
- Sexual harassment (1)
- Stereotype (1)
- Systemic disparate treatment (1)
- Title VII (1)
- Work (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell
Gamble V. U.S.: Brief Of Amici Curiae Law Professors In Support Of Petitioner, Stuart Banner, Paul Cassell
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
In this case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, petitioner Gamble's brief demonstrates that there was no dual sovereignty doctrine before the mid-19th century. At the Founding and for several decades thereafter, a prosecution by one sovereign was understood to bar a subsequent prosecution by all other sovereigns. Dual sovereignty is thus contrary to the original meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Defendants today enjoy a weaker form of double jeopardy protection than they did when the Bill of Rights was ratified.
But that fact only raises three further questions. First why did the Court erroneously conclude in Bartkus v. …
Employment Discrimination And The Domino Effect, Laura T. Kessler
Employment Discrimination And The Domino Effect, Laura T. Kessler
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
Employment discrimination is a multidimensional problem. In many instances, some combination of employer bias, the organization of work, and employees’ responses to these conditions, leads to worker inequality. Title VII does not sufficiently account for these dynamics in two significant respects. First, Title VII’s major proof structures divide employment discrimination into discrete categories, for example, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and sexual harassment. This compartmentalization does not account for the fact that protected employees often concurrently experience more than one form of discriminatory exclusion. The various types of exclusion often add up to significant inequalities, even though seemingly insignificant when considered …