Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Does Sec Rule 10b-5 Provide An Implied Private Right Of Action For Aiding And Abetting Securities Fraud?, Matthew J. Barrett
Does Sec Rule 10b-5 Provide An Implied Private Right Of Action For Aiding And Abetting Securities Fraud?, Matthew J. Barrett
Journal Articles
This case concerns the civil liability of persons who aid and abet securities fraud in violation of federal law. First, the Supreme Court will decide if federal securities law recognizes an implied private right of action against those who aid and abet securities fraud. Second, if the Court concludes that there is a private right of action, it is asked to decide if recklessness satisfies the mental-state requirement which lower courts have held is a prerequisite for imposing civil liability.
Does Sexual Harassment Require Proof Of Psychological Injury? An Analysis Of Harris V. Forklift Systems, Barbara J. Fick
Does Sexual Harassment Require Proof Of Psychological Injury? An Analysis Of Harris V. Forklift Systems, Barbara J. Fick
Journal Articles
This article previews the Supreme Court case Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993). The author expected the Court to address whether, under Title VII the Civil Rights Act of 1965, a plaintiff is required to prove that he or she suffered psychological injury as a result of sexual harassment in the workplace in order to prove a hostile-environment.
Pretext Or Pretext-Plus: What Must A Plaintiff Prove To Win A Title Vii Lawsuit? An Analysis Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Barbara J. Fick
Pretext Or Pretext-Plus: What Must A Plaintiff Prove To Win A Title Vii Lawsuit? An Analysis Of St. Mary's Honor Center V. Hicks, Barbara J. Fick
Journal Articles
This article previews the Supreme Court case St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993). The author expected the Court to address whether, in the context of an employment discrimination case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff should prevail upon proof that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons advanced by the defendant as its motives for an adverse employment action are pretextural.