Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Title VII (2)
- After-acquired evidence (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
- Causation (1)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1)
-
- Employment discrimination (1)
- Equality (1)
- Fourteenth Amendment (1)
- Labor and employment (1)
- Misconduct (1)
- Moral hazard (1)
- Original intent (1)
- Originalism (1)
- Racism (1)
- Religious accommodation (1)
- Respondeat superior (1)
- Section 1981 (1)
- Section 1983 (1)
- Segregation (1)
- Smith v. Bray (1)
- Supervisor liability (1)
- The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principal to Judicial Doctrine (1)
- William E. Nelson (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Original Intent And The Fourteenth Amendment: Into The Black Hole Of Constitutional Law, Paul Finkelman
Original Intent And The Fourteenth Amendment: Into The Black Hole Of Constitutional Law, Paul Finkelman
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This article explores and examines William E. Nelson’s masterful study of the origins and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principal to Judicial Doctrine (1988). The article explains that a quarter of a century after he wrote this book, Nelson’s study of the origins and adoption of the Amendment remains the best exploration of these issues. His book illustrates the difficulties of determining the “original intent” of the framers of this complicated and complex Amendment. At the same time, however, Nelson demonstrates that for many issues we can come to a strong understanding of the goals …
The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee
The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Freedom of religion in the workplace has recently become a hot topic with regards to whether U.S. or state laws (mainly contraceptive care and treatment of same-sex, married employees’ spouses) must accommodate certain employer’s religious beliefs or else violate the employer’s constitutional right. However, before this recent employer-centric topic came to light, the main focus was on employees and to what extent employers must accommodate an employee’s religion via Title VII. Most, if not all, academic literature has argued an employer’s duty to accommodate employee’s religion is too weak under Title VII and should thus be increased to the significant …
Expanding The After-Acquired Evidence Defense To Include Post-Termination Misconduct, Holly G. Eubanks
Expanding The After-Acquired Evidence Defense To Include Post-Termination Misconduct, Holly G. Eubanks
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In 1995, the United States Supreme Court formulated the after-acquired evidence defense in employment discrimination litigation. The defense, if successfully established, allows the defendant to limit the damages available to the plaintiff. In order to assert the defense, a defendant must establish that it would have terminated the plaintiff based on after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing if the defendant had known of the wrongdoing prior to the termination. The defense, as generally accepted, applies to misconduct that occurs during employment and misconduct that occurs prior to employment in the application process. This note considers the potential expansion of the defense to …
The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa
The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Smith v. Bray, the Seventh Circuit, on a case of first impression, determined that supervisors with retaliatory motives can and should be individually liable under section 1981 when they cause the employer to retaliate against an employee. This article argues against the Seventh Circuit’s holding for four reasons. First, courts are required to analyze section 1981 the same way they analyze Title VII, and Title VII does not allow for individual supervisor liability. Second, the Seventh Circuit justified its decision based on a flawed comparison between section 1981 and section 1983, a similar but distinct civil rights statute. Third, …