Law Commons^™

Clarifying Stereotyping, Kerri Lynn Stone

Kerri Stone

This Article addresses the largely undefined, misunderstood-yet-often-resorted-to concept of “stereotyping” as a basis for, or sufficient evidence of, liability for employment discrimination. Since, the concept’s genesis in Supreme Court jurisprudence in 1989, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, plaintiffs have proffered remarks alleged to be tinged with, or indicating the presence of, impermissible stereotypes as evidence of discrimination based on protected-class status – be that sex, race, color, religion, or national origin – in contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Article examines the language in Hopkins and its precise mandates and guidance for lower courts. It …

The Price Of Price Waterhouse: How Title Vii Reduces The Lives Of Lgbt Americans To Sex And Gender Stereotypes, Drew Culler

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Unifying Antidiscrimination Law Through Stereotype Theory, Stephanie Bornstein

Stephanie Bornstein

Has litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reached the limit of its utility in advancing workplace equality? After four decades of forward progress on antidiscrimination law in the courts, Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have signaled a retrenchment, disapproving of key theories scholars and advocates had pursued to address workplace discrimination in its modern, more subtle and structural forms. Yet sex and race inequality at work endure, particularly in pay and at the top of organizations. Notably, while the Roberts Court majority appears skeptical that discrimination persists and resistant to recognizing the role …

Unifying Antidiscrimination Law Through Stereotype Theory, Stephanie Bornstein

UF Law Faculty Publications

Has litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reached the limit of its utility in advancing workplace equality? After four decades of forward progress on antidiscrimination law in the courts, Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have signaled a retrenchment, disapproving of key theories scholars and advocates had pursued to address workplace discrimination in its modern, more subtle and structural forms. Yet sex and race inequality at work endure, particularly in pay and at the top of organizations.

Notably, while the Roberts Court majority appears skeptical that discrimination persists and resistant to recognizing the role …

The Respective Burdens Of Proof In Title Vii Cases: Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins Confuses The Issue, Gregory T. Rossi

Akron Law Review

employed women, and other minorities throughout the United States. The opinion has several significant aspects. First, the case defines the respective evidentiary burdens of a plaintiff-employee and defendant-employer in a Title VIP suit, when the plaintiff-employee has shown that the defendant-employer's employment action resulted from a consideration of legitimate and illegitimate factors (i.e., "mixed motive case"). Second, the express allocation of the burdens of proof resolved a conflict among the various Courts of Appeals. Third, the Court failed to issue a majority opinion. This is significant in light of the current republican administration and its influence on what is now …

Reading Amendments And Expansions Of Title Vii Narrowly, Henry L. Chambers, Jr.

Law Faculty Publications

Throughout Title VII’s history, Congress has amended and expanded Title VII. Often, the Supreme Court has read such amendments and expansions narrowly, even as it generally reads Title VII broadly or narrowly depending on the case before it. The Court’s approach to Title VII expansions may merely indicate that the Court believes that such statutory alterations should be read only as broadly as necessary to effectuate their purposes. However, regardless of why the Court has interpreted these expansions narrowly, that the Court has done so suggests that Congress ought to consider carefully how it amends or expands Title VII in …

Employment Discrimination In The United States In 1989: Revisions Or A Pause, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

This Article traces the genesis of this misguided doctrine, its proliferation, and it’s many flaws. It explains what the doctrine has come to mean and which facets of a comment can render it “stray” as a matter of law. Part II evaluates this unwieldy and untenable doctrine and its haphazard and misguided application over the past two decades. Specifically, it was never intended to be a formal doctrine. As employed by courts, the term “stray” means too many things and is too ambiguous for the doctrine to be coherent or effective. Moreover, courts ascribe varying degrees of significance to the …

Clarifying Stereotyping, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

This Article addresses the largely undefined, misunderstood-yet-often-resorted-to concept of “stereotyping” as a basis for, or sufficient evidence of, liability for employment discrimination. Since, the concept’s genesis in Supreme Court jurisprudence in 1989, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, plaintiffs have proffered remarks alleged to be tinged with, or indicating the presence of, impermissible stereotypes as evidence of discrimination based on protected-class status – be that sex, race, color, religion, or national origin – in contravention of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Article examines the language in Hopkins and its precise mandates and guidance for lower courts. It …

Employment Law - Antidiscrimination - Heading Toward Federal Protection For Sexual Orientation Discrimination?, Matthew Barker

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

If It Is Broken, Then Fix It: Needed Reforms To Employment Discrimination Law: 2009 Annual Meeting Of The Association Of American Law Schools Section On Employment Discrimination Law, Melissa Hart, Minna Kotkin, Roberto Corrada, Deborah Widiss

Publications

No abstract provided.

Extending Title Vii Protection To Non-Gender-Conforming Men, Colleen M. Keating

The Modern American

No abstract provided.

If Women Don't Ask: Implications For Bargaining Encounters, The Equal Pay Act, And Title Vii, Charles B. Craver

Michigan Law Review

Last spring, Jennifer and Richard graduated from the same law school with similar backgrounds. Both were offered associate positions with the same law firm and a $75,000 starting salary. Jennifer enthusiastically accepted the firm's offer, but Richard was hesitant. He informed the hiring partner that comparable firms in this area were paying new associates $80,000 per year. The partner offered Richard a starting salary of $80,000, which he accepted. Felicia and Harold manage similar departments for an e-commerce business. They have similar backgrounds, and have been with this firm for the same number of years. When Harold meets with the …

Employment Law: Desert Palace, Inc. V. Costa: Returning To Title Vii's Core Principles By Eliminating The Direct Evidence Requirement In Mixed-Motive Cases, Daniel P. Johnson

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.

Toward A Motivating Factor Test For Individual Disparate Treatment Claims, Benjamin C. Mizer

Michigan Law Review

Nathan Fields, an African-American employee at the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities ("OMRDD"), was in many ways the typical Title VIP employment discrimination plaintiff, with a case that, on its face, suggested both discriminatory and benign actions by his employer. For six years, Fields worked as a maintenance assistant in the electrical shop at OMRDD's Oswald D. Heck Developmental Center ("Heck"). During that time, he twice applied for a promotion, and on each occasion, Heck selected white employees for the position. In addition, Fields claimed that he was discriminatorily singled out for disciplinary treatment, that …

Employment Discrimination, Charles Stephen Ralston, Paul Kamenar, William Bradford Reynolds, Gail Wright-Sirmans

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.