Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Litigation (2)
- Arbitration Fairness Act (1)
- Bodily injury (1)
- Carrier (1)
- Claims (1)
-
- Common law (1)
- Compensation (1)
- Construing (1)
- Coverage (1)
- Coverage disputes (1)
- Deferred compensation (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Discrimination claims (1)
- Disparate (1)
- Duke Power (1)
- Employee benefits (1)
- Employees (1)
- Employer discrimination (1)
- Employer's liability (1)
- Employment (1)
- Employment arbitration (1)
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Federal Arbitration Act (1)
- Gender (1)
- Griggs (1)
- Harassment (1)
- Impact (1)
- Insurance coverage (1)
- Insurance industry's (1)
- Insurance law (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration To Deprive Workers Of Legal Protection, Jean R. Sternlight
Disarming Employees: How American Employers Are Using Mandatory Arbitration To Deprive Workers Of Legal Protection, Jean R. Sternlight
Scholarly Works
Employers’ imposition of mandatory arbitration constricts employees’ access to justice. The twenty percent of the American workforce covered by mandatory arbitration clauses file just 2,000 arbitration claims annually, a minuscule number even compared to the small number of employees who litigate claims individually or as part of a class action. Exploring how mandatory arbitration prevents employees from enforcing their rights the Article shows employees covered by mandatory arbitration clauses (1) win far less frequently and far less money than employees who litigate; (2) have a harder time obtaining legal representation; (3) are often precluded from participating in class, collective or …
Disparate Impact Theory In Employment Discrimination: What’S Griggs Still Good For? What Not?, Elaine W. Shoben
Disparate Impact Theory In Employment Discrimination: What’S Griggs Still Good For? What Not?, Elaine W. Shoben
Scholarly Works
Is disparate impact a dead theory of employment discrimination? Definitely not. The theory itself has a more stable legal status than it did when the Supreme Court embraced it in its 1971 opinion Griggs v. Duke Power Co. But is it thriving in litigation? It appears to be neither thriving nor dead. It has become a relatively less vital tool, compared with theories of intentional discrimination. Despite the heroic effort of Congress to keep the theory from destruction by the Supreme Court through its express codification in 1991, disparate impact litigation is not making a major impact in this …
Judge-Made Insurance That Was Not On The Menu: Schmidt V. Smith And The Confluence Of Text, Expectation, And Public Policy In The Realm Of Employment Practices Liability, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Judge-Made Insurance That Was Not On The Menu: Schmidt V. Smith And The Confluence Of Text, Expectation, And Public Policy In The Realm Of Employment Practices Liability, Jeffrey W. Stempel
Scholarly Works
In Schmidt v. Smith, the New Jersey Supreme Court caught more than a few observers by surprise. New Jersey courts have generally issued opinions regarded as pro-claimant and pro-policyholders. But everyone's taste for recompense and coverage has limits. In Schmidt, the court exceeded those limits for many observers by holding that despite what it regarded as clear contract language in an exclusion, an insurer providing Employers’ Liability (“EL”) coverage along with Workers' Compensation (“WC”) insurance for the employer was required to provide coverage in a case of blatant sexual harassment bordering on criminal assault. In doing so, the Schmidt court, …
Norris V. Arizona Governing Committee: Titile Vii's Applicability To Arizona's Deferred Compensation Plan, Mary E. Berkheiser
Norris V. Arizona Governing Committee: Titile Vii's Applicability To Arizona's Deferred Compensation Plan, Mary E. Berkheiser
Scholarly Works
Analysis of Norris v. Arizona Governing Comm., 671 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1982).