Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons^™

“You Don’T Bring Me Flowers Anymore”: President Clinton, Paula Jones, And Why Courts Should Expand The Definition Of “Adverse Employment Action” Under Title Vii’S Anti-Retaliation Provision, Lawrence Rosenthal

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) prohibit discrimination based on individuals’ protected characteristics. In addition to prohibiting this type of status-based discrimination, these statutes also prohibit employers from retaliating against employees who assert their rights under the statutes or who assist others in asserting their rights.

Over the past several years, retaliation charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) have made up an increasingly high percentage of all charges filed with the agency. Specifically, …

It Is Political: Using The Models Of Judicial Decision Making To Explain The Ideological History Of Title Vii, Kate Webber

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In Part I, this Article details the key features of Title VII’s history, explaining the statute, the significant role the Supreme Court has played in its interpretation, and the history of congressional intervention to override Supreme Court decisions on key issues. Part II reviews the existing evidence for and against an ideological interpretation of Title VII’s case law. Part III introduces the political science models of judicial decision making and applies the models to Title VII. Part III also details the models’ evidence of ideological voting by the Supreme Court and matches this evidence with voting patterns in Title …

When The Court Makes Title Vii Law And Policy: Disparate Impact And The Journey From Griggs To Ricci, Ronald Turner

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article focuses on judicial lawmaking and policymaking in an important area of antidiscrimination law—Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s regulatory regime. As enacted in 1964, Title VII only prohibited intentional employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The statute requires a finding that an employer “has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint.” “[Such] ‘disparate treatment’ . . . is the most easily understood type of discrimination. The employer simply treats some people less favorably than others . . . …

Fifty Years After The Passage Of Title Vii: Is It Time For The Government To Use The Bully Pulpit To Enact A Status-Blind Harassment Statute?, Marcia L. Narine

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Article provides a blueprint for how Congress can accept Justice Ginsburg’s challenge to protect workers, particularly in precarious economic times when employees cannot easily switch jobs and in an era in which the vast majority of workers do not have the protection of a collective bargaining agreement. Not only should Congress redefine “supervisor,” but Congress should also consider a related underlying factor that was not raised in the Vance case—the issue of workplace bullying. If workplace bullying were a viable cause of action, Maetta Vance likely would have prevailed in a state that entitled her to relief because …

The Future Of Workplace Affirmative Action After Fisher, Rebecca K. Lee

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

The Supreme Court’s decision on race-conscious affirmative action in Fisher, along with the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Fisher on remand, importantly preserves the validity of affirmative action programs in state decisionmaking if the programs meet certain criteria under strict scrutiny and satisfy full judicial review. Although Fisher arose in the higher education context, its application extends to the public setting more generally and thus would also apply to the public sector workplace under the Constitution, making it permissible for public sector employers to use race-conscious affirmative action in hiring and promoting employees. The approach taken in Fisher also …

In Defense Of Mcdonnell Douglas: The Domination Of Title Vii By The At-Will Employment Doctrine, Chuck Henson

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

The purpose of this Article is to describe the actual relationship between the Doctrine and Title VII as implemented in the Court’s disparate treatment decisions. Title VII and the Doctrine are not separate forces warring with each other. The at-will employment doctrine guided the Court’s Title VII disparate treatment jurisprudence, giving the maximum possible latitude to employers because that was the Eighty-eighth Congress’s intent.

Debunking Unequal Burdens, Trivial Violations, Harmless Stereotypes, And Similar Judicial Myths: The Convergence Of Title Vii Literalism, Congressional Intent, And Kantian Dignity Theory, Peter Brandon Bayer

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

The line of argument is not complex. Part I explicates the unequal burden doctrine and its link to the predecessor theory of “mutable characteristics.” Part II offers the aforementioned statutorily formal argument, disproving unequal burden theory through an examination of Title VII’s plain language and structure in light of modern Supreme Court precedents addressing Title VII’s ban against stereotyping. This analysis places special emphasis on 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m), in which Congress clarified that plaintiffs prevail when discriminatory animus merely is a “motivating factor” rather than the “but-for cause” of the defendants’ conduct.

Although not the lengthiest discussion herein …

At Fifty, Title Vii Needs A Facelift: Two Reforms That Would Ensure Title Vii Works To Prohibit All Racial Discrimination In Employment, Joshua P. Thompson, Ralph W. Kasarda

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

No abstract provided.