Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1)
- Blacks (1)
- Castaneda v. Partida (1)
- Civil rights law (1)
- Constitution (1)
-
- Department of Health Education and Welfare (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Discriminatory purpose (1)
- Education Amendments of 1972 (1)
- Equal Pay Act (1)
- Equal protection clause (1)
- Fourteenth amendment (1)
- Fundamental right (1)
- HEW (1)
- Housing (1)
- Mere rationality (1)
- Preliminary relief (1)
- Racial discrimination (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Section 1981 Litigation (1)
- State action (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Suspect class (1)
- Title IX (1)
- Title VII (1)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1)
- Washington v. Davis (1)
- Whites (1)
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Title Ix Sex Discrimination Regulations: Impact On Private Education, Tim Philpot
Title Ix Sex Discrimination Regulations: Impact On Private Education, Tim Philpot
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
Preliminary Relief In Employment Discrimination Cases, Richard F. Richards
Preliminary Relief In Employment Discrimination Cases, Richard F. Richards
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.
From Washington To Arlington Heights And Beyond: Discriminatory Purpose In Equal Protection Litigation, Robert G. Schwemm
From Washington To Arlington Heights And Beyond: Discriminatory Purpose In Equal Protection Litigation, Robert G. Schwemm
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
When the Supreme Court decided Washington v. Davis on June 7, 1976, it began a new era in civil rights law. Rejecting the contention that state action is unconstitutional solely because it operates to injure more blacks than whites, the Court held that proof of discriminatory purpose is necessary to establish a claim of racial discrimination under the equal protection clause. In two cases decided the following term—Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. and Castaneda v. Partida—the Court reaffirmed its commitment to the discriminatory purpose requirement, but was badly divided on how to apply the …