Law Commons^™

Meritor Savings Bank V. Vinson: The Supreme Court's Recognition Of The Hostile Environment In Sexual Harassment Claims, Victoria T. Bartels

Akron Law Review

This casenote will examine Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson in light of the brief legal history of Title VII sexual harassment claims and will consider the implications of both the Court's holding and its dicta regarding the undecided issues.

Civil Rights In The 1990'S: Non-Discrimination Or Quotas?, Donald B. Ayer

Akron Law Review

I would like today to offer some thoughts on the way that we as a country have handled the issue of reverse discrimination as a means of pursuing equal opportunity.

My first observation is that there is an undeniable tension between competing approaches to racial and gender justice that have been advanced and pursued in recent years. I take as my starting point the fundamental principle embodied in the Equal Protection Clause (as well as the Declaration of Independence), that, as the elder Justice Harlan said in dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson,' the Constitution is colorblind, and does not allow …

United Auto Workers V. Johnson Controls, Inc.: One Small Step For Womankind, A. L. Cherry

Akron Law Review

In United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with the task of deciding whether women's childbearing capacity could be used to limit women's job choices and opportunities within certain industrial/ manufacturing fields. The Court decided that the ability to bear children could be used to so limit women, but only if the employer met a high standard. In Johnson Controls, employees who worked in a toxic work environment sought a determination that their employer's fetal protection policy discriminated on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act …

The Ironies Of Affirmative Action, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s most recent confrontation with race-based affirmative action, Fisher v. University of Texas, did not live up to people’s expectations—or their fears. The Court did not explicitly change the current approach in any substantial way. It did, however, signal that it wants race-based affirmative action to be subject to real strict scrutiny, not the watered-down version featured in Grutter v. Bollinger. That is a significant signal, because under real strict scrutiny, almost all race-based affirmative action programs are likely unconstitutional. This is especially true given the conceptual framework the Court has created for such programs—the way …

Bait And Switch: Why United States V. Morrison Is Wrong About Section Five, Kermit Roosevelt Iii

All Faculty Scholarship

As the title suggests, the article examines Morrison’s creation of the rule that the Section Five power cannot be used to regulate private individuals. This is one of the most meaningful and, thus far, durable constraints that the Court has placed on federal power. It is the more surprising, then, that it turns out to be based on essentially nothing at all. The Morrison Court asserted that its rule was derived by—indeed, “controlled by”—precedent, but a closer reading of the Reconstruction-era decisions it cites shows that this is simply not the case. An independent evaluation of the rule against regulation …