Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Amicus Curiae Brief Of Equality Ohio In Support Of Intervenor Urging Reversal, Doron M. Kalir, Kenneth J. Kowalski
Amicus Curiae Brief Of Equality Ohio In Support Of Intervenor Urging Reversal, Doron M. Kalir, Kenneth J. Kowalski
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
Title VII’s plain language bars discharge of “any individual”—whether transgender or not—“because of such individual’s . . . sex.” It applies whenever employers take gender into account in making employment decisions. It is undisputed that the employer in this case based his decision to terminate Ms. Stephens solely on sex-based considerations. To be sure, he could have terminated Ms. Stephens for a wide array of reasons—tardiness, failure to perform, disciplinary issues—or for no reason at all. Under those circumstances, such termination—even of a transgender person—would not be “because of such individual’s sex.” But that is not the case here. Here, …
What's So Reasonable About Reasonableness? Rejecting A Case Law-Centered Approach To Title Vii's Reasonable Belief Doctrine, Matthew W. Green Jr.
What's So Reasonable About Reasonableness? Rejecting A Case Law-Centered Approach To Title Vii's Reasonable Belief Doctrine, Matthew W. Green Jr.
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
The article critiques recent application of the reasonable belief doctrine under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, in pertinent part, provides that “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees … because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice [under Title VII].” Literally read, the provision requires that an employee oppose a practice Title VII actually makes unlawful. If the employee does so and is retaliated against, the statute affords the employee relief. While the U.S. courts of appeals have …
Family, Cubicle Mate And Everyone In Between: A Novel Approach To Protecting Employees From Third-Party Retaliation Under Title Vii And Kindred Statutes, Matthew W. Green Jr.
Family, Cubicle Mate And Everyone In Between: A Novel Approach To Protecting Employees From Third-Party Retaliation Under Title Vii And Kindred Statutes, Matthew W. Green Jr.
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This article joins the discussion of when employees should be protected against third-party retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and analogously worded statutes. In Thompson v. N. Am. Stainless, LP., 131 S.Ct. 863 (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court held that third-party retaliation was cognizable under Title VII, an issue that had divided the lower courts for decades. Prior to Thompson, lower courts that recognized the viability of such claims often imposed limits on the classes of relationships for which third-party retaliation was unlawful. For instance, courts often found such claims viable where after an employee …