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

Law Commons

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

Civil Rights and Discrimination

SelectedWorks

Cheryl L Anderson

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada, Cheryl L. Anderson Mar 2012

Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada, Cheryl L. Anderson

Cheryl L Anderson

Causation continues to be one of the most confounding issues in antidiscrimination law. Despite having rejected the position over two decades ago in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., recently asserted that the “ordinary default rule” in disparate treatment claims requires a plaintiff to prove but-for causation when a statute prohibits discrimination “because of” a protected characteristic. Gross threw disparate treatment law into disarray. Title VII has been statutorily modified to require only proof of motivating factor causation before the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show it would have made …


Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada, Cheryl L. Anderson Mar 2012

Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada Unification Of Standards In Discrimination Law: The Conundrum Of Causation And Reasonable Accommodation Under The Ada, Cheryl L. Anderson

Cheryl L Anderson

Causation continues to be one of the most confounding issues in antidiscrimination law. Despite having rejected the position over two decades ago in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Court in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., recently asserted that the “ordinary default rule” in disparate treatment claims requires a plaintiff to prove but-for causation when a statute prohibits discrimination “because of” a protected characteristic. Gross threw disparate treatment law into disarray. Title VII has been statutorily modified to require only proof of motivating factor causation before the burden of proof shifts to the employer to show it would have made …