Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Of Dinosaurs And Birds: The Second Circuit’S “Forum Rule” As An Unwarranted Attack On Plaintiffs’ Employment Discrimination Class Action Attorneys’ Fee Petitions, Patrick F. Madden, Shanon J. Carson Jan 2010

Of Dinosaurs And Birds: The Second Circuit’S “Forum Rule” As An Unwarranted Attack On Plaintiffs’ Employment Discrimination Class Action Attorneys’ Fee Petitions, Patrick F. Madden, Shanon J. Carson

Patrick F. Madden

No abstract provided.


Express Yourself: Striking A Balance Between Silence And Active, Purposive Opposition Under Title Vii's Anti-Retaliation Provision, Matthew W. Green Jr. Jan 2010

Express Yourself: Striking A Balance Between Silence And Active, Purposive Opposition Under Title Vii's Anti-Retaliation Provision, Matthew W. Green Jr.

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In short, although the article determines that while Crawford should not open the door to silent opposition, the active, purposive requirement that Justice Alito championed and that some courts pre- and post-Crawford have adopted goes too far the other way. There is a swath of opposition conduct that stands between silence and the standard that Justice Alito and some courts advocate. This article explores where that line should be drawn.


Disrupting Sexual Categories Of Intimate Preference, Luke A. Boso Dec 2009

Disrupting Sexual Categories Of Intimate Preference, Luke A. Boso

Luke A. Boso

Society tends to treat a person's sexual orientation and intimate preferences as if those concepts are static and immutable. People regularly divide themselves into binary gay and straight categories, and similarly seek masculine or feminine qualities in an appropriately sexed person. These intimate preferences occupy a uniquely private position in society, and the characteristics to which people claim attraction are thought so personal as to be sacred. In turn, we resist characterizing our intimate preferences as discrimination despite the tangible harms that befall those who are disproportionately excluded from romantic opportunities. But individual discriminatory intimate practices do not necessarily imply …