Law Commons^™

Co-Worker Evidence In Court, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

This symposium explores ways to empower workers. Many employment laws rely on workers filing private rights of action to enforce the underlying substantive law. Unfortunately, when workers file these claims in court, courts often do not allow them to rely on evidence from their co-workers. While courts regularly allow employers to submit co-worker evidence of a plaintiff's poor performance or lack of qualifications, they often diminish or exclude a plaintiff's co-worker evidence that the plaintiff performed well or possessed desired qualifications. This Article identifies and explores this evidentiary inequality. It argues that efforts to empower workers must include the power …

The Emerging Statutory Proximate Cause Doctrine, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

The year 2011 marked the birth of a new idea. The United States decided Staub v. Proctor Hospital and for the first time invoked common law proximate cause in the context of federal employment discrimination law. It is rare in jurisprudence to be present at the birth of an idea and then see that idea develop over its first decade. This Article charts the emerging proximate cause doctrine from its early days as a baby doctrine. Now, the doctrine is pre-adolescent, with all of the changes and turmoil that phrase entails.

Into The Weeds: Modern Discrimination Law, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

Modern discrimination law is the law of minutiae. Judicial energy is not primarily focused on large questions about why workplace inequality exists or how to prevent it. It is not even focused on whether the plaintiff in a particular case was treated differently because of a protected trait. Instead, judicial energy centers on interpreting and applying an ever-growing phalanx of complicated court-created ancillary doctrines.

Since the 1970s, the federal courts have created a number of frameworks to analyze discrimination claims. Each framework provides a roadmap for proving a certain theory of discrimination. Over time, the courts have added bells and …

Killing The Cat's Paw, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Publications

In federal employment discrimination law, courts apply the label "cat's paw" to describe certain cases. Judge Richard Posner first used the term cat's paw in the context of federal discrimination jurisprudence, invoking a fable about an enterprising monkey who tricks a cat into getting hot chestnuts from a fire.' As the cat removes the hot chestnuts from the fire, the monkey eats them, leaving the cat with nothing except burnt paws.

In its traditional form, a cat's paw case is one in which a biased individual passes along negative information about a worker to an "unbiased" decisionmaker. The "unbiased" decisionmaker …