Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Trial Jurors And Variables Influencing Why They Return The Verdicts They Do - A Guide For Practicing And Future Trial Attorneys, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera
Trial Jurors And Variables Influencing Why They Return The Verdicts They Do - A Guide For Practicing And Future Trial Attorneys, Mitchell J. Frank, Osvaldo F. Morera
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
What's Religion Got To Do With It? Virtually Nothing: Hosanna-Tabor And The Unbridled Power Of The Ministerial Exemption, Marsha B. Freeman
What's Religion Got To Do With It? Virtually Nothing: Hosanna-Tabor And The Unbridled Power Of The Ministerial Exemption, Marsha B. Freeman
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
E Pluribus Unum: Liberalism's March To Be The Singular Influence On Civil Rights At The Supreme Court, Aaron J. Shuler
E Pluribus Unum: Liberalism's March To Be The Singular Influence On Civil Rights At The Supreme Court, Aaron J. Shuler
Barry Law Review
This article seeks to apply Rogers Smith’s Multiple Traditions thesis to the United States Supreme Court’s treatment of the Fourteenth Amendment to uncover the influences behind its major civil rights decisions. It will argue that liberalism dominates at the Court after mostly, but not completely, shedding its illiberal tendencies. This article will argue that the Court’s focus on intent over impact and its “color-blind” approach to racial classifications in the era of subterranean prejudice and indifference or ignorance to inequality solidifies and perpetuates the hierarchies created by ascriptive forms of Americanism under the Court’s liberal notions. This article will also …
Who's The Boss? A Distinction Without A Difference, Lakisha A. Davis
Who's The Boss? A Distinction Without A Difference, Lakisha A. Davis
Barry Law Review
This case note provides the factual background of Vance v. Ball State and briefly summarizes the legal precedent behind the decision. It analyzes the opinion of the Court, suggesting that the decision severely limited the essential protections against workplace harassment provided by Title VII, consequently making it more difficult for employees to prove employer vicarious liability for workplace harassment.