Law Commons^™

Brief For Petitioner, Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 Wl 3501186, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she engaged in certain protected activity. The questions presented are:

(1) Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, who is closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity?

(2) If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?

Sidelined: Title Ix Retaliation Cases And Women's Leadership In College Athletics, Erin E. Buzuvis

Faculty Scholarship

Discrimination against women seeking or serving in leadership positions in sport is worthy of analysis, not only for the sake of individual women who desire to self-actualize as a head coach or athletic administrator, but because the unique role of sport in society gives underrepresentation of women in leadership positions additional significance. Due to its high visibility and widespread appeal—its veritable iconic status—sport is a salient site of cultural production. That is, sport operates on a symbolic level, reflecting and transmitting shared cultural values. Among these values, sport helps define the attributes associated with leadership, and thus, derivatively, power. By …

The Supreme Court's Anti-Retaliation Principle, Richard E. Moberly

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

In five cases issued during the last five years, the Supreme Court interpreted statutory anti-retaliation provisions broadly to protect employees who report illegal employer conduct. These decisions conflict with the typical understanding of this Court as pro-employer and judicially conservative. In a sixth retaliation decision during this time, however, the Court interpreted constitutional anti-retaliation protection narrowly, which fits with the Court’s pro-employer image but diverges from the anti-retaliation stance it appeared to take in the other five retaliation cases. This Article explains these seemingly anomalous results by examining the last fifty years of the Supreme Court’s retaliation jurisprudence. In doing …

Express Yourself: Striking A Balance Between Silence And Active, Purposive Opposition Under Title Vii's Anti-Retaliation Provision, Matthew W. Green Jr.

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In short, although the article determines that while Crawford should not open the door to silent opposition, the active, purposive requirement that Justice Alito championed and that some courts pre- and post-Crawford have adopted goes too far the other way. There is a swath of opposition conduct that stands between silence and the standard that Justice Alito and some courts advocate. This article explores where that line should be drawn.