Law Commons^™

Analytical Nightmare: The Materially Adverse Action Requirement In Disparate Treatment Cases, Esperanza N. Sanchez

Catholic University Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Since its passage, however, federal courts have imported an adverse employment action requirement into Title VII jurisprudence despite its absence from the statutory language. Inconsistent determinations as to which employment actions qualify as sufficiently adverse under Title VII have resulted in an analytical confusion, yielding anemic anti-discrimination protections that, in effect, shelter invidious employment practices from liability. This Note argues that the anti-discrimination jurisprudence surrounding the adverse action requirement diametrically opposes both the letter …

Does It Pay To Be A Manager? The Significance Of The Manager Rule In Analyzing Retaliation Claims Under Title Vii, Cristina Giappone

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note argues that the manager rule should be applied to Title VII cases but in a new and very specific and detailed context involving a case-by-case analysis, similar to that of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning in Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enterprises, Inc. This Note is comprised of three parts. Part I provides the history of Title VII generally, and discusses the emergence of the manager rule in the FLSA context. Part II addresses how different federal circuit courts have either recognized or rejected the manager rule as it applies to retaliation …

No Bayesian Solution To The Transposition Fallacy: More Reason To Be Skeptical Of Statistical Proof Of Discrimination, Kingsley R. Browne

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal

Statistical proof of discrimination often entails comparisons of the demographics of an employer’s work force with that of the relevant labor force. The statistical study yields a “p-value,” and if the p-value is below some pre-specified level, the disparity is deemed “statistically significant.” The p-value is often interpreted as the probability that the observed disparity was obtained by chance, but equating the p-value with the likelihood that chance caused the disparity is an example of the “transposition fallacy.” Recognizing this fallacy, some commentators have suggested the use of Bayesian methods, under which the probability of discrimination is estimated by incorporating …