Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Discrimination in employment (4)
- Labor laws and legislation (3)
- Equality before the law (2)
- Administrative agencies (1)
- Americans with Disabilities Act (1)
-
- Cable television (1)
- Civil Rights Act (1)
- Collective bargaining (1)
- Disability evaluation – law and legislation (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Discrimination in employment – law and legislation (1)
- Disparate treatment (1)
- Employee selection (1)
- Employment (1)
- Family policy – United States (1)
- Labor disputes (1)
- National origin (1)
- Persons with disabilities (1)
- Race (1)
- Sex (1)
- Sick leave – law and legislation (1)
- Title VII (1)
- Worker (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. Francois, And Eric Schnapper As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Peterson V. Linear Controls Incorporated, No. 18-1401 (U.S. Supreme Court June 6, 2019), Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. François
Brief Of Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. Francois, And Eric Schnapper As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Peterson V. Linear Controls Incorporated, No. 18-1401 (U.S. Supreme Court June 6, 2019), Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. François
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
In Title VII disparate-treatment, employment-discrimination cases, the term “adverse employment action” originally developed as judicial shorthand for the statute’s text, which broadly prohibits any discriminatory conduct by an employer against an employee based on the employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). But what started simply as shorthand has taken on a life of its own and now improperly limits the statute’s reach. The Fifth Circuit’s version of the adverse-employment-action rule stands out as especially improper: Only an “ultimate employment decision”—a refusal to hire, a firing, a demotion, or the like—constitutes impermissible discrimination.
In this …
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The National Academy Of Arbitrators In Support Of Respondents, 14 Penn Plaza V. Pyett, No. 07-581 (U.S. June 27, 2008), James Oldham
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Reply Brief For Petitioner, Engquist V. Oregon Department Of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. April 9, 2008), Justin Florence, Mathew Gerke, Neal K. Katyal
Reply Brief For Petitioner, Engquist V. Oregon Department Of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. April 9, 2008), Justin Florence, Mathew Gerke, Neal K. Katyal
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief Of Petitioner, Engquist V. Oregon Dept. Of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2008), Justin Florence, Mathew Gerke, Neal K. Katyal
Brief Of Petitioner, Engquist V. Oregon Dept. Of Agriculture, No. 07-474 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2008), Justin Florence, Mathew Gerke, Neal K. Katyal
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief For The Respondent, Chevron U.S.A. V. Echazabal, No. 00-1406 (U.S. Feb. 1, 2002), Chai R. Feldblum
Brief For The Respondent, Chevron U.S.A. V. Echazabal, No. 00-1406 (U.S. Feb. 1, 2002), Chai R. Feldblum
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Brief In Opposition, Nevada Department Of Human Resources V. Hibbs, No. 01-1368 (U.S. 2001), Cornelia T. Pillard
Brief In Opposition, Nevada Department Of Human Resources V. Hibbs, No. 01-1368 (U.S. 2001), Cornelia T. Pillard
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Minority Media And Telecommunications Council V. Md/Dc/De Broadcasters Ass'n, No. 01-639 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2001), Angela J. Campbell, Amy S. Wolverton
Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Minority Media And Telecommunications Council V. Md/Dc/De Broadcasters Ass'n, No. 01-639 (U.S. Oct. 17, 2001), Angela J. Campbell, Amy S. Wolverton
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.