Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Maternity Rights: A Comparative View Of Mexico And The United States, Roberto Rosas
Maternity Rights: A Comparative View Of Mexico And The United States, Roberto Rosas
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Women play a large role in the workplace and require additional protection during pregnancy, childbirth, and while raising children. This article compares how Mexico and the United States have approached the issue of maternity rights and benefits. First, Mexico provides eighty-four days of paid leave to mothers, while the United States provides unpaid leave for up to twelve weeks. Second, Mexico allows two thirty-minute breaks a day for breastfeeding, while the United States allows a reasonable amount of time per day to breastfeed. Third, Mexico provides childcare to most federal employees, while the United States provides daycares to a small …
Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Products: The Emperor Has No Clothes - Pretext Plus Is Alive And Kicking., Matthew R. Scott, Russell D. Chapman
Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Products: The Emperor Has No Clothes - Pretext Plus Is Alive And Kicking., Matthew R. Scott, Russell D. Chapman
St. Mary's Law Journal
Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools established the proper standard of causation in employment discrimination cases. The plaintiff must prove his or her protected trait was the “determinative reason” for the challenged employment action. Following Reeves, which appeared to overrule Rhodes and the doctrine of pretext plus, the Fifth Circuit struggled with the causation question. Despite the apparent confusion, the Fifth Circuit has largely reaffirmed not only its commitment to the Rhodes pretext-plus analysis, but also the determinative-reason standard for pretext cases. …
Making Sense Of Pretext: An Analysis Of Evidentiary Requirements For Summary Judgment Litigants In The Fifth Circuit In Light Of Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Prodcuts, And A Proposal For Clarification., Eric S. Riester
St. Mary's Law Journal
Although the United States Supreme Court in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. attempted to clarify the summary judgment landscape of Title VII employment discrimination cases, lower courts in the Fifth Circuit are still without guidance. Under Reeves, direct proof of discrimination is not required to defeat a motion for summary judgment as long as the circumstantial evidence allows a reasonable inference of discrimination. The required strength of the circumstantial evidence, however, remains a major issue in the Fifth Circuit. Since Reeves, the Fifth Circuit has not stated a uniform summary judgment standard, nor has it answered how much circumstantial …
Defining The Limits Of Federal Court Jurisdiction Over States In Bankruptcy Court., Patricia L. Barsalou
Defining The Limits Of Federal Court Jurisdiction Over States In Bankruptcy Court., Patricia L. Barsalou
St. Mary's Law Journal
Sovereign immunity jurisprudence has always been a confusing jumble of assumptions which seem incomprehensible. Despite the confusion, understanding sovereign immunity has become more important in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida. The constitutional issues raised in Seminole Tribe amount to a reinterpretation of the fundamental balance of power between federal and state governments and the power of Congress to affect that balance. Not all sovereign immunity is sovereign immunity. Many courts use the term to identify both the common-law doctrine and the “immunity” granted to the states through the Eleventh …
Nonparties To Employment Discrimination Consent Decrees May Attack, In A Collateral Lawsuit, Decisions Made Pursuant To The Decrees., Michael T. Larkin
Nonparties To Employment Discrimination Consent Decrees May Attack, In A Collateral Lawsuit, Decisions Made Pursuant To The Decrees., Michael T. Larkin
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Martin v. Wilks, the United States Supreme Court held nonparties to employment discrimination consent decrees may attack, in a collateral lawsuit, decisions made pursuant to the decrees. A consent decree is a voluntary judgment between parties which facilitates settlement of litigation by providing one party with equitable relief. Courts retain jurisdiction over parties to a consent decree, and they can issue contempt orders to parties violating the terms of the decree. Unlike judgments, the parties cannot challenge the consent decrees, except in limited circumstances. Recently, federal courts have widened the scope of preclusion law by defining the term “claim” …