Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Title Vii: Legal Protection Against Sexual Harassment, Kerri Weisel
Title Vii: Legal Protection Against Sexual Harassment, Kerri Weisel
Washington Law Review
This comment will focus on the three major themes raised by these decisions: (1) whether sexual harassment is or can be gender-based; (2) whether or not the supervisor must be treated as the representative of the employer; and (3) whether recognition of a Title VII cause of action will inundate the courts with unfounded claims of harassment. After exploring the approaches and analyses of the various courts, the comment concludes that sexual harassment can constitute a violation of Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination; and that whether it does or not is basically a question of fact.
The Paradox Of Preferential Treatment—Reverse Discrimination—The Implications Of Lindsay V. City Of Seattle, 86 Wn. 2d 698, 548 P.2d 320, Cert. Denied Sub Nom. Brabant V. City Of Seattle, 97 S. Ct. 237 (1976), Kerry Radcliffe
Washington Law Review
In upholding a municipal affirmative action plan, Lindsay provides a point of departure for an analysis of the reverse discrimination questions inherent in such plans. Following a brief history of the development of preferential employment remedies and an examination of the Lindsay decision, this note will evaluate preferential relief and reverse discrimination within the framework of Lindsay, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and recent court decisions. Applicability of the Lindsay methodology to future reverse discrimination cases will be examined in light of apparent Supreme Court approval of a reverse discrimination cause of action under Title VII. …
Civil Rights—The Supreme Court's Terrible Swift Sword: The Civil Rights Act Of 1866 And The Reconstruction Of Private Schools—Runyon V. Mccrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976), Gerald Bresslour
Washington Law Review
Plaintiffs, black children, were denied admission to defendants' private schools solely on the basis of race. The children's parents had made applications for admission in response to brochures mailed to "resident" and advertisements directed to the general public. Alleging that defendants had violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by denying plaintiffs the same right to enter into contracts that was enjoyed by white applicants, plaintiffs filed a class action suit in federal district court. The district court enjoined defendants and intervenor Southern Independent School Association from further racial discrimination in their admission practices. A divided Court of Appeals for the Fourth …