Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ACA (1)
- Affordable Care Act (1)
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
- And proximate cause (1)
-
- Appelate (1)
- Article III (1)
- But-for cause (1)
- Civil Rights Act (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Common law (1)
- Congress (1)
- Disbelief Doctrines (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Factual cause (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Federal discrimination (1)
- Gross (1)
- Honest belief rule (1)
- Intent (1)
- Judge (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- McDonnell Douglas (1)
- Nassar (1)
- Obama Care (1)
- Price Waterhouse (1)
- Restatement of Torts (1)
- Same actor (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Disbelief Doctrines, Sandra F. Sperino
Disbelief Doctrines, Sandra F. Sperino
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
Employment discrimination law is riddled with doctrines that tell courts to believe employers and not workers. Judges often use these disbelief doctrines to dismiss cases at the summary judgment stage. At times, judges even use them after a jury trial to justify nullifying jury verdicts in favor of workers.
This article brings together many disparate discrimination doctrines and shows how they function as disbelief doctrines, causing courts to believe employers and not workers. The strongest disbelief doctrines include the stray comments doctrine, the same decisionmaker inference, and the same protected class inference. However, these are not the only ones. Even …
Discrimination Law: The New Franken-Tort, Sandra F. Sperino
Discrimination Law: The New Franken-Tort, Sandra F. Sperino
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
This article was part of the Clifford Symposium in Tort Law. The article discusses how the Supreme Court has used tort law to define certain elements of discrimination law, but has not described all of the elements of this new tort. The article is the first one to try to piece together the new "tort" created by the Supreme Court.
Does A House Of Congress Have Standing Over Appropriations?: The House Of Representatives Challenges The Affordable Care Act, Bradford Mank
Does A House Of Congress Have Standing Over Appropriations?: The House Of Representatives Challenges The Affordable Care Act, Bradford Mank
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
In U.S. House of Representatives v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, the District Court for D.C. in 2015 held that the House of Representatives has Article III standing to challenge certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act as violations of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on legislative standing is complicated. The Court has generally avoided the contentious question of whether Congress has standing to challenge certain presidential actions because of the difficult separation-of-powers concerns in such cases. In Raines v. Byrd, the Court held that individual members of Congress generally do not have Article III standing by simply holding …