Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Labor and Employment Law
License To Harass Women: Requiring Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment To Be “Severe Or Pervasive” Discriminates Among “Terms And Conditions Of Employment, Judith J. Johnson
License To Harass Women: Requiring Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment To Be “Severe Or Pervasive” Discriminates Among “Terms And Conditions Of Employment, Judith J. Johnson
Journal Articles
Title VII was intended to remedy discrimination; thus, it is ironic that the courts themselves discriminate among "terms and conditions of employment" by treating hostile environment discrimination less favorably, most commonly in sexual harassment cases. As the Supreme Court said in its first sexual harassment case, hostile environment harassment must be "severe or pervasive" to be actionable. However, many lower courts have used this language to excuse harassment against women. This Article suggests that the problem originates in the Court's continued use of the phrase "severe or pervasive" to describe actionable conduct. This rather dramatic terminology in fact overstates the …
A Uniform Standard For Exemplary Damages In Employment Discrimination Cases, Judith J. Johnson
A Uniform Standard For Exemplary Damages In Employment Discrimination Cases, Judith J. Johnson
Journal Articles
The standards for exemplary damages in employment discrimination cases are in disarray. The major federal provisions that prohibit private employment discrimination, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 1981 ("§ 1981"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), all have an indistinguishably worded standard for assessing exemplary damages: "reckless indifference to federally protected rights."
A Standard For Punitive Damages Under Title Vii, Judith J. Johnson
A Standard For Punitive Damages Under Title Vii, Judith J. Johnson
Journal Articles
Under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the plaintiff in an employment discrimination case who alleges intentional discrimination may recover punitive damages if she demonstrates that her employer engaged in the discriminatory practice with "malice" or "reckless indifference" to federally protected rights. To prove a case of disparate treatment under Title VII, the plaintiff bears the burden of persuading the trier of fact that her employer intended to discriminate against her. In other words, to be liable in a disparate treatment case, the employer has to specifically intend to treat the plaintiff differently based, for example, on her sex. If …
Rebuilding The Barriers: The Trend In Employment Discrimination Class Actions, Judith J. Johnson
Rebuilding The Barriers: The Trend In Employment Discrimination Class Actions, Judith J. Johnson
Journal Articles
Congress intended that employees vindicate the rights given them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by private action. For several years private actions proved to be very successful in eliminating employment discrimination. Recent decisions of the Supreme Court and lower courts have limited the effectiveness of the private employment discrimination suit as a major deterrent and remedy for such discrimination. This is especially true in the area of class action suits, which have been the single most effective tool in eliminating employment discrimination. Many courts today interpret Rule 23, the federal rule governing class action suits, …
Title Vii: When Is A Pretext Not A Pretext? An Analysis Of Westinghouse Electric Corp. V. Vaughn, Barbara J. Fick
Title Vii: When Is A Pretext Not A Pretext? An Analysis Of Westinghouse Electric Corp. V. Vaughn, Barbara J. Fick
Journal Articles
This article previews the Supreme Court case Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn, 466 U.S. 521 (1984). The author expected the Court to clarify the evidentiary requirements and burdens of plaintiffs and defendants in litigating a disparate treatment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.