Law Commons^™

Employment Discrimination Testing: Theories Of Standing And A Reply To Professor Yelnosky, Leroy D. Clark

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In this Article, Professor Clark addresses the legal issues surrounding the use of testers-individuals who deliberately apply for employment to detect sex and race discrimination. He surveys three theoretical justifications for granting standing to organizations that run testing programs. Professor Clark then responds to a previous article by Professor Yelnosky, disputing some of his conclusions. Professor Clark indicates that testing is just as necessary in higher-level employment as lower-level employment; shows that testers can obtain meaningful relief from the courts; analyzes the impact of the 1991 Civil Rights Act amendments; and encourages Congress to authorize the EEOC to run tester …

Salvaging The Opportunity: A Response To Professor Clark, Michael J. Yelnosky

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In this Article, Professor Yelnosky responds to Professor Clark's critique of his previous article, Filling an Enforcement Void: Using Testers to Uncover and Remedy Discrimination in Hiring for Lower-Skilled, Entry-Level Jobs. Professor Yelnosky first clarifies that Professor Clark has adopted several of the points Professor Yelnosky originally made in his earlier article. He then responds to the portions of Professor Clark's article that challenge his prior conclusions. He builds on and defends his previous arguments that: (1) testing is best suited to uncover hiring discrimination for lower-skilled jobs; (2) disincentives to bringing tester lawsuits make it unwise to rely …

Filling An Enforcement Void: Using Testers To Uncover And Remedy Discrimination In Hiring For Lower-Skilled, Entry-Level Jobs, Michael J. Yelnosky

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Article concludes that the current enforcement scheme under Title VII has resulted in underenforcement of the Act in the context of hiring for lower-skilled, entry-level jobs and that testers should be used to fill that enforcement void. Part II agrees with the EEOC's conclusion that testers have standing to sue under Title VII.

Parts III and IV assert that the EEOC cannot rely on private testers to fill the enforcement void. First, under current doctrine, prevailing testers can obtain only "de minimis" or "technical" relief from an offending employer and therefore cannot recover attorneys' fees. Moreover, …

Employer Racial Discrimination: Reviewing The Role Of The Nlrb, Lawrence F. Doppelt

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The NLRB and various commentators rely upon three basic legal arguments in rejecting this interpretation: first, the EEOC, and not the NLRB, is the sole and proper agency for litigating racial issues; second, employer racial discrimination does not interfere with the protected rights of employees under the Act, and third, it is not, and never was, Congress' intent in passing the Act to bring racial discrimination within its purview. Unquestionably, each of these legal arguments has, or at some time had, surface appeal, and, at one time, considerable force. The great mass of legal commentary supports at least one of …