Law Commons^™

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Undocumented Domestic Workers: A Penumbra In The Workforce, Abigail A. Roman

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Citizenship, Aliengage, And Ethnic Origin Discrimination In Employment Under The Law Of The United States, Mack A. Player

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

A Comparative Analysis Of Unconscious And Institutional Discrimination In The United States And Britain, Leland Ware

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Undocumented Workers And Concepts Of Fault: Are Courts Engaged In Legitimate Decisionmaking, Christine N. Cimini

Articles

This Article examines judicial decisionmaking in labor and employment cases involving undocumented workers. Labor and employment laws, designed to protect all workers regardless of immigration status, often conflict with immigration laws designed to deter the employment of undocumented workers. In the absence of clarity as to how these differing policy priorities should interact, courts are left to resolve the conflict. While existing case law appears to lack coherence, this Article identifies a uniform judicial reliance upon “fault-based” factors. This Article offers a structure to understand this developing body of law and evaluates the legitimacy of the fault-based decisionmaking modalities utilized …

Bridging The Title Vii Gap: Protecting All Workers From “Work Authorization” Discrimination, Rachel K. Alexander

University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class

No abstract provided.

Redefining The Rights Of Undocumented Workers, Keith Cunningham-Parmeter

American University Law Review

Should a nation extend legal rights to those who enter the country illegally? The Supreme Court recently addressed this question when it held that unauthorized immigrants who are fired illegally for unionizing cannot recover monetary remedies. This has led to a significant decline in employment protections for unauthorized immigrants beyond the unionized sector. For example, some courts now question whether unauthorized immigrants can receive full remedies for sexual harassment, workplace discrimination, or on-the-job injuries.

Scholars have criticized these losses but have yet to formulate a coherent framework for evaluating the employment rights of unauthorized immigrants. This article does so by …

Ask, Don’T Tell: Ethical Issues Surrounding Undocumented Workers’ Status In Employment Litigation, Christine N. Cimini

Articles

The presence of an estimated 11.5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, of which an estimated 7.2 million are working, has become a flashpoint in the emerging national debate about immigration. Given these statistics, it is not surprising that many undocumented workers suffer injuries in the workplace that are typically legally cognizable. Even though undocumented workers are entitled to a number of legal remedies related to their employment, seeking legal relief often raises heightened concerns about the disclosure of their status. This article explores lawyers' increasingly complex ethical obligations with regard to a client's immigration status in the context …

The Less Than Fair Employment Practice Of An English-Only Rule In The Workplace, L. Darnell Weeden

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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 …

42 U.S.C. 1981 Does Not Provide A Remedy For Racial Harassment During Employment., Jeffrey A. Lacy

St. Mary's Law Journal

In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the United States Supreme Court held 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide a remedy for racial harassment during employment. In 1976, in Runyon v. McCrary, the Court expanded the scope of § 1981 to cover private discrimination in contractual settings, including racial discrimination in private schools, when previously unavailable. More than a decade after the Runyon decision, the Supreme Court in Patterson, established that there were limits to § 1981’s applicability in private racial discrimination claims. Specifically, the Court held while § 1981 prohibits discriminatory conduct while entering into or enforcing a contract, …

U.S. Immigration Reform: Employer Sanctions And Antidiscrimination Provisions, Alan K. Simpson

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.