Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Discrimination Law; workplace discrimination; Adverse Employment Action; Hostile Work Environment; Brown v. Brody; Chambers v. District of Columbia; Circuit Split; harm; de minimis harm; Muldrow v. City of St. Louis Missouri (1)
- Civil Rights Act; Title VII; Employment Discrimination; McDonnell; Douglas; Ortiz; Nassar; evidence; evidentiary standard; retaliation claim; burden of proof; standard; but for; causation; jurisprudence; Seventh Circuit; employee (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Dogma, Discrimination, And Doctrinal Disarray: A New Test To Define Harm Under Title Vii, Zach Islam
Dogma, Discrimination, And Doctrinal Disarray: A New Test To Define Harm Under Title Vii, Zach Islam
Brooklyn Law Review
Historically, federal courts have used the “adverse employment action” test in Title VII disparate treatment, disparate impact, and retaliation cases to determine whether a plaintiff has suffered adequate harm. This note argues that this approach is fundamentally flawed. At the outset, the test is a judicial power grab with no support in the statutory language. What is more, it fails to uphold the plain policy purposes for Title VII by largely ignoring evidence of discriminatory acts in the workplace that Congress sought to prevent in passing the statute. Consequently, Title VII plaintiffs get the short end of the stick with …
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Fleeing The Rat’S Nest: Title Vii Jurisprudence After Ortiz V. Werner Enterprises, Inc., Zachary J. Strongin
Brooklyn Law Review
In 2016, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that may be a harbinger for an important shift in the federal judiciary’s long-standing employment discrimination jurisprudence. In Ortiz v. Werner Enterprises, Judge Easterbrook reiterated the frustration with the existing “rat’s nest” of tests and standards used in Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims. The note contains two overarching arguments. First, the Supreme Court’s employment discrimination and “rat’s nest” of tests and standards has led to an untenable situation in which federal district courts apply different standards at different stages of litigations. This in turn has caused confusion amongst the various federal …