Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons^™

Public Health Consequences Of Appellate Standards For Hostile Work Environment Claims, Lauren Krumholz

Washington Journal of Social & Environmental Justice

No abstract provided.

Sex Trait Discrimination: Intersex People And Title Vii After Bostock V. Clayton County, Sam Parry

Washington Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from workplace discrimination and harassment on account of sex. Courts have historically failed to extend Title VII protections to LGBTQ+ people. However, in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County changed this. Bostock explicitly extended Title VII’s protections against workplace discrimination to “homosexual” and “transgender” people, reasoning that it is impossible to discriminate against an employee for being gay or transgender without taking the employee’s sex into account. While Bostock is a win for LGBTQ+ rights, the opinion leaves several questions unanswered. The reasoning in …

Protecting The Rights And Wellbeing Of People With Disabilities During The Covid-19 Pandemic, Elizabeth Pendo

Chapters in Books

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and exacerbated significant inequities experienced by people with disabilities. It has also emphasized the value of legal protections against discrimination based on disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted 30 years ago to eliminate discrimination against people with disabilities and ensure equal opportunity across major areas of American life (ADA, 2008). Together with an earlier law, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act, 2012), this landmark civil rights law impacts a broad range of issues raised by the COVID-19 pandemic and protects a large and growing number of Americans. This Chapter focuses on application …

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 period …

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 period …

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 the …

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she opposed discrimination forbidden by Title VII. The lower courts are divided as to how such anti-retaliation provisions apply to management officials, such as personnel or EEO officials, whose duties include assuring compliance with Title VII or implementing an employer’s anti-discrimination policy.

The question presented is: Are management officials: (1) subject to exclusion from protection under section 704(a) if their actions are within the scope of their official duties (the rule in the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits),
(2) protected under …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Dellinger V. Science Applications International Corp. (No. 11-598), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2153, Eric Schnapper, Zachary A. Kitts, John J. Rigby

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the anti-retaliation provision in section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to retaliation by an employer against a job applicant? (2) Is the private cause action provided by section 16(b) of the FLSA available to a job applicant who is retaliated against by an employer?

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2135, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioner, Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 Wl 3501186, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she engaged in certain protected activity. The questions presented are:

(1) Does section 704(a) forbid an employer from retaliating for such activity by inflicting reprisals on a third party, such as a spouse, family member or fiance, who is closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity?

(2) If so, may that prohibition be enforced in a civil action brought by the third party victim?

Supplemental Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2990, Eric Schnapper, David Suetholz

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Supplemental Brief For Respondent, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Ry. Co. V. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (No. 05-259), 2006 Wl 690256, Donald A. Donati, William B. Ryan, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

Respondent submits this supplemental brief pursuant to Rule 25.5 of this Court.

Under the unique circumstances of this case, the brief for the United States constitutes "intervening matter that was not available in time to be included in a brief." A majority of the government’s argument consists of an attack on the literal reading of section 704(a) advanced respondent. If this Court were to adopt the government’s narrow reading of section 704(a), it is far from certain that respondent would prevail. The original panel of the Sixth Circuit that heard this case applied a version of the "materially adverse" formulation …

By Any Other Name?: On Being "Regarded As" Black, And Why Title Vii Should Apply Even If Lakisha And Jamal Are White, Angela Onwuachi-Willig, Mario L. Barnes

Articles

Applying theories concerning the social construction of race, this Article borrows from the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the courts' analyses of disability discrimination cases under the "regarded as" disabled provision of the ADA, which allows a plaintiff to bring a claim against an employer who regards the plaintiff as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Using the "regarded as" provision as a model, this Article proposes a new method for recognizing discrimination claims based on the use of proxies for race-even when those proxies have been used …

Closing A Discrimination Loophole: Using Title Vii's Anti-Retaliation Provision To Prevent Employers From Requiring Unlawful Arbitration Agreements As Conditions Of Continued Employment, Sidney Charlotte Reynolds

Washington Law Review

Courts have long viewed mandatory arbitration agreements (MAAs) as contract provisions that employees may accept or decline based on the common law doctrine of employment at-will. However, employees may see such MAAs as attempts to curtail Title VII rights and may refuse to sign them. Title VII prohibits employers from retaliating against employees who oppose discriminatory employment practices. A legal loophole has developed where some employers seek explicitly or implicitly to exempt themselves from Title VII's provisions by drafting MAAs that eliminate statutory rights and remedies from the arbitration process or deter employees from filing discrimination claims altogether. The U.S. …

Two Wrongs Do Not Make A Defense: Eliminating The Equal-Opportunity-Harasser Defense, Shylah Miles

Washington Law Review

Sexual harassment is a prevalent problem in the American workplace that accounts for nearly sixty-four percent of all gender discrimination claims under Title VII. The equal-opportunity-harasser defense allows harassers who target both males and females to escape liability. Courts have allowed the defense because they have interpreted the "because of sex" element of a sexual harassment claim to require disparate treatment or a showing that the plaintiffs would not have been harassed if they were members of the opposite sex. An equal-opportunity harasser harasses both sexes and, therefore, plaintiffs cannot prove disparate treatment. This Comment argues that the disparate-treatment requirement …

Victimized Twice -- The Intersection Of Domestic Violence And The Workplace: Legal Reform Through Curriculum Development, Lea B. Vaughn

Articles

Domestic violence is at least a two-fold problem for American society. On the one hand, it is one of the leading causes of violence at the workplace against women. On the other, it prevents many women from attaining the economic security that would enable them to escape violence. After describing the background of this problem, this paper will canvass current legal remedies that are available to help battered women achieve economic security. This survey leads to the conclusion that the current pastiche of remedies is often ineffective because of their piecemeal approach to the problem, or because current doctrine does …

Appearance Matters: A Proposal To Prohibit Appearance Discrimination In Employment, Elizabeth M. Adamitis

Washington Law Review

The consideration of appearance in employment decisionmaking context is prevalent and widely accepted. Nonetheless, statutory protection against such discrimination remains limited. Federal protection applies only to claims related to already-protected categories of discrimination, including disability, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and age. Only one state and a small number of cities and counties explicitly prohibit appearance discrimination in employment. This Comment argues that consideration of appearance in employment decisions is not justified, rational, or beneficial to society unless a bona fide occupational qualification or reasonable business purpose exists. States should adopt statutory protection for appearance to.protect otherwise qualified applicants …

"Overpaid" Older Workers And The Age Discrimination In Employment Act, Stacey Crawshaw-Lewis

Washington Law Review

Congress passed the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) to prohibit discrimination against older workers. The legislative history of the ADEA shows that Congress recognized that this discrimination most commonly stemmed from inaccurate stereotypes about the older worker. A review of ADEA cases decided between 1984 and 1995 demonstrates the frequent incidence of cases in which older workers allegedly were fired or not hired because of the higher salaries typically earned by these relatively experienced workers. This review also reveals that, applying an unduly mechanical version of the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine test, courts did not effectively identify (1) employment actions purportedly …

United Steelworkers Of America V. Weber: An Exercise In Understandable Indecision, George Schatzki

Washington Law Review

It is well known to those involved in the world of employment-discrimination law that in 1974 the United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation entered into a collective-bargaining agreement which provided for a new on-the-job training program designed solely to correct the virtually total absence of blacks in Kaiser's craft workforce. Fifty percent of the trainees were to be black. Brian Weber, a white production worker who failed to obtain a position in the program, instituted a class action suit alleging that the affirmative action plan discriminated against him and his white colleagues in violation of Title …

United Steelworkers Of America V. Weber: An Exercise In Understandable Indecision, George Schatzki

Washington Law Review

It is well known to those involved in the world of employment-discrimination law that in 1974 the United Steelworkers of America and Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation entered into a collective-bargaining agreement which provided for a new on-the-job training program designed solely to correct the virtually total absence of blacks in Kaiser's craft workforce. Fifty percent of the trainees were to be black. Brian Weber, a white production worker who failed to obtain a position in the program, instituted a class action suit alleging that the affirmative action plan discriminated against him and his white colleagues in violation of Title …

Title Vii: Legal Protection Against Sexual Harassment, Kerri Weisel

Washington Law Review

This comment will focus on the three major themes raised by these decisions: (1) whether sexual harassment is or can be gender-based; (2) whether or not the supervisor must be treated as the representative of the employer; and (3) whether recognition of a Title VII cause of action will inundate the courts with unfounded claims of harassment. After exploring the approaches and analyses of the various courts, the comment concludes that sexual harassment can constitute a violation of Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination; and that whether it does or not is basically a question of fact.

The Paradox Of Preferential Treatment—Reverse Discrimination—The Implications Of Lindsay V. City Of Seattle, 86 Wn. 2d 698, 548 P.2d 320, Cert. Denied Sub Nom. Brabant V. City Of Seattle, 97 S. Ct. 237 (1976), Kerry Radcliffe

Washington Law Review

In upholding a municipal affirmative action plan, Lindsay provides a point of departure for an analysis of the reverse discrimination questions inherent in such plans. Following a brief history of the development of preferential employment remedies and an examination of the Lindsay decision, this note will evaluate preferential relief and reverse discrimination within the framework of Lindsay, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and recent court decisions. Applicability of the Lindsay methodology to future reverse discrimination cases will be examined in light of apparent Supreme Court approval of a reverse discrimination cause of action under Title VII. …

Remedies For Racial Discrimination In Employment: A Comparative Evaluation Of Forums, Cornelius J. Peck

Washington Law Review

Enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with a provision for the awarding of attorneys' fees, opened new opportunities for attorneys in private practice to represent victims of employment discrimination. Within recent years the Act has been predominate in litigation involving racial discriminaton in employment, but imaginative attorneys appealing to innovative courts have used other statutory and common law sources for fashioning relief. The 1866 Civil Rights Act, by analogy to its recent application to discriminatory housing practices, offers an important remedy against racial discrimination to employees. It also promises a protection, not found in Title …

Legal Restraints On Racial Discrimination In Employment, By Michael I. Sovern (1966), F. Ray Marshall

Washington Law Review

No abstract provided.

Legal Restraints On Racial Discrimination In Employment, By Michael I. Sovern (1966), F. Ray Marshall

Washington Law Review

No abstract provided.