Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune Nov 2016

Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group?* (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing ...


Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune Oct 2016

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing ...


Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3646, 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling Jun 2016

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3646, 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.


Brief In Opposition. City Of Houston V. Zamora, 136 S.Ct. 2009 (2016) (No. 15-868), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1615, 2016 Wl 1445907, Eric Schnapper, Kim Ogg, Scott Poerschke, Randall L. Kallinen, Robert Mcknight, Jr. Apr 2016

Brief In Opposition. City Of Houston V. Zamora, 136 S.Ct. 2009 (2016) (No. 15-868), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1615, 2016 Wl 1445907, Eric Schnapper, Kim Ogg, Scott Poerschke, Randall L. Kallinen, Robert Mcknight, Jr.

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the liability standard in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), apply to retaliation claims under Title VII? (2) Under Staub, where a supervisor for an unlawful purpose has engaged in conduct that was intended to and did in fact cause an adverse employment action, the existence of an independent investigation by other officials does not limit liability unless that investigation reveals a new basis for that adverse action that is “unrelated” to the conduct of the supervisor. The second question presented is: Should the Court overturn the decision in Staub, and hold that ...


Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling Mar 2016

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., held in an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that a plaintiff may ordinarily prove the existence of an unlawful motive by establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating the falsity of the employer’s proffered explanation for the disputed employment, and that a plaintiff who does so need not also offer some other additional evidence of discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit held in this Title VII action that the existence of an unlawful motive may not be established in that manner; a plaintiff who establishes a prima facie case and ...


Brief For Legal Ethics And Labor Law Professors As Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Nat'l Fed'n Of Indep. Bus. V. Perez, Ruben J. Garcia Jan 2016

Brief For Legal Ethics And Labor Law Professors As Amici Curiae Supporting Appellants, Nat'l Fed'n Of Indep. Bus. V. Perez, Ruben J. Garcia

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.