Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Supreme Court of the United States Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legislation

University of Michigan Law School

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Civil Rights Act of 1964

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Supreme Court of the United States

Categorically Black, White, Or Wrong: 'Misperception Discrimination' And The State Of Title Vii Protection, D. Wendy Greene Sep 2013

Categorically Black, White, Or Wrong: 'Misperception Discrimination' And The State Of Title Vii Protection, D. Wendy Greene

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article exposes an inconspicuous, categorically wrong movement within antidiscrimination law. A band of federal courts have denied Title VII protection to individuals who allege “categorical discrimination”: invidious, differential treatment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, or sex. Per these courts, a plaintiff who self-identifies as Christian but is misperceived as Muslim cannot assert an actionable claim under Title VII if she suffers an adverse employment action as a result of this misperception and related animus. Though Title VII expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, courts have held that such a plaintiff’s claim of “misperception …


The Bottom Line Limitation To The Rule Of Griggs V. Duke Power Company, James P. Scanlan Apr 1985

The Bottom Line Limitation To The Rule Of Griggs V. Duke Power Company, James P. Scanlan

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this article analyzes the background to the Teal decision and the treatment by the majority and dissent of the issue known in employment discrimination law as the "bottom line" limitation to the disparate impact theory of employment discrimination. Part II explains why, for reasons beyond those considered by the Teal majority, not only was the Court's rejection of the bottom line theory manifestly correct, but a contrary result would have had grievous consequences. Part III then argues for a similar rejection of the bottom line limitation in those situations where most observers have taken for granted that …