Law Commons^™

The Eeoc, The Ada, And Workplace Wellness Programs, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

It seems that everybody loves workplace wellness programs. The Chamber of Commerce has firmly endorsed those progarms, as have other business groups. So has President Obama, and even liberal firebrands like former Senator Tom Harkin. And why not? After all, what's not to like about programs that encourage people to adopt healthy habits like exercise, nutritious eating, and quitting smoking? The proponents of these programs speak passionately, and with evident good intentions, about reducing the crushing burden that chronic disease places on individuals, families, communities, and the economy as a whole. What's not to like? Plenty. Workplace wellness programs are …

Centering The Teenage "Siren": Adolescent Workers, Sexual Harassment, And The Legal Construction Of Race And Gender, Anastasia M. Boles

Michigan Journal of Gender & Law

Recent scholarship and media attention has focused on the prevalence of sexually harassing behavior directed at working teenagers, and the emergence of sexual harassment lawsuits by these minors against their employers. Although many of the legal issues concerning workplace sexual harassment and adult workers (and the various state and federal jurisprudence prohibiting it) have been widely discussed, there is surprisingly little discourse, research, and precedent addressing the problem of workplace sexual harassment and teen workers. Currently, most sexual harassment cases brought by adolescent workers are litigated using the doctrinal framework for adult workers. Only the Seventh Circuit has developed an …

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission And Structural Reform Of The American Workplace, Margo Schlanger, Pauline T. Kim

Articles

In one of its most-watched recent cases, the United States Supreme Court struck down a class action alleging that Wal-Mart stores discriminated against female employees in pay and promotion decisions. The plaintiffs alleged that Wal-Mart’s corporate culture and highly discretionary decision-making practices led to sex discrimination on a company-wide basis, and they sought injunctive relief as well as backpay for individual employees. Reversing the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court held in Wal-Mart v. Dukes that the proposed class failed to meet the requirements for class action certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of …

Mandatory Arbitration: Why It's Better Than It Looks, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

"Mandatory arbitration" as used here means that employees must agree as a condition of employment to arbitrate all legal disputes with their employer, including statutory claims, rather than take them to court. The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of such agreements on the grounds that they merely provide for a change of forum and not a loss of substantive rights. Opponents contend this wrongfully deprives employees of the right to a jury trial and other statutory procedural benefits. Various empirical studies indicate, however, that employees similarly situated do about as well in arbitration as in court actions, or even …

Resolving The Title Vii Partner-Employee Debate, Kristin Nicole Johnson

Michigan Law Review

In January of 2001, a New York court issued an order affirming a plaintiff's ability to bring suit against a law firm partnership for discriminatory acts that occurred during her tenure as an associate at the firm. The plaintiff, Stacy Ballen-Stier, joined Hahn & Hessen, L.L.P. as an associate and, on January 1, 1997, the firm invited her to join the partnership. According to Ms. Ballen-Stier's complaint, the words and actions of a fellow partner, Mr. Blejwas, created a hostile and abusive work environment and continued to plague her "even when [she] was away from the office." Ms. Ballen-Stier alleged …

Safe, But Not Sound: Limiting Safe Harbor Immunity For Health And Disability Insurers And Self-Insured Employers Under The Americans With Disabilities Act, Rachel Schneller Ziegler

Michigan Law Review

When Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") on July 26, 1990, supporters heralded the Act as a full-scale victory for the 43 million disabled Americans. The Act's protections went far beyond those of its predecessor, the Rehabilitation Act of 1974, which only prohibited discrimination against individuals with disabilities by entities receiving federal funding. The new act was intended to prevent discrimination by private and public employers, public services, and public accommodations. In a bill signing ceremony at the White House, in front of more than two thousand advocates for the disabled, then President George Bush likened the ADA …

The Case Against Employment Tester Standing Under Title Vii And 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Michael Bowling

Michigan Law Review

In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment, public accommodations, public facilities, public schools, and federal benefit programs. Title VII of this Act directed its aim specifically at stamping out prejudice in employment. Four years later, the Supreme Court resurrected the provisions of § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which, among other things, protects citizens, regardless of race or color, in their right to "make and enforce [employment] contracts." Together, Title VII and § 1981 serve as the primary legal bases for challenging racially discriminatory actioris by private employers. More than thirty years …

The Changing Role Of Labor Arbitration (Symposium: New Rules For A New Game: Regulating Employment Relationships In The 21st Century), Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

A quarter century ago, in a provocative and prophetic article, David E. Feller lamented the imminent close of what he described as labor arbitration's "golden age." I have expressed reservations about that characterization, insofar as it suggested an impending shrinkage in the stature of arbitration. But Professor Feller was right on target in one important respect. Labor arbitration was going to change dramatically from the autonomous institution in the relatively self-contained world of union-management relations which it had been from the end of World War II into the 1970s. When the subject matter was largely confined to union-employer agreements, arbitration …

Deference And Disability Discrimination, Rebecca Hanner White

Michigan Law Review

For thirty-five years, the civil rights community has paid scant attention to administrative law principles. Those interested in advancing on-the-job equality for this country's working men and women (or in preserving employer autonomy vis-a-vis federal encroachment) have all but ignored what many consider the arcane technicalities of administrative law. This state of affairs is strange when one considers that administration and enforcement of each of our major federal laws outlawing employment discrimination have been confided to an administrative agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC, however, has historically been given short shrift by litigants and by the judiciary. …

Why Mandatory Arbitration May Benefit Workers, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Would employees-including union employees-be better off with mandatory arbitration, even of statutory employment claims? The answer to this important question should depend less on abstract notions about the importance of statutory claims and the sanctity of the right to a jury trial, and more on a pragmatic assessment of what is likely to be best for the great majority of workers. Employing this type of analysis, which would take into account an overworked, underfunded Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, backlogged court dockets and other practical problems, my view is that most employees might well be better off with mandatory arbitration, provided …

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 …

The Charge-Filing Requirement Of The Age Discrimination In Employment Act: Accrual And Equitable Modification, Jim Beall

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that ADEA causes of action should accrue when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, that she has been injured by an adverse employment action such as discharge, demotion, denial of a position or promotion, or receipt of pay lower than employees doing the same job. Courts should equitably modify the filing period for the time in which the plaintiff reasonably failed to file a charge even though she already knew of the adverse employment action. Such a situation arises largely in two contexts: (1) when an employer engages in active misconduct that keeps the plaintiff …

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, …

An Administrative Battle Of The Forms: The Eeoc's Intake Questionnaire And Charge Of Discrimination, Laurie M. Stegman

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the EEOC's interpretation of Title VII as reflected in its regulations is consistent with underlying statutory intent and strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of employers and employees. Therefore, Congress should amend section 706(b) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to provide that a charge must be verified prior to the commencement of an EEOC investigation but not necessarily within the statutory filing period. Part I examines the legislative history of Title VII and its integrated procedures for obtaining administrative and judicial relief. Part II critiques the various ways in which …

Judicial Responses To The Eeoc's Failure To Attempt Conciliation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note suggests that a court faced with inadequate conciliation efforts by the EEOC should dismiss the action without prejudice. Part I argues that dismissal better serves the remedial purpose of the statute than summary judgment. Part II then demonstrates that dismissal satisfies the policy concerns of courts that dispose of inadequately conciliated suits. Although dismissal may not promote judicial efficiency as well as summary judgment, courts and the Commission can handle the dismissal to minimize duplication. Part III advances dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as the appropriate procedural vehicle for disposing …

The Proper Role Of Res Judicata And Collateral Estoppel In Title Vii Suits, Charles C. Jackson, John H. Matheson, Thomas J. Pikorski

Michigan Law Review

The Article proceeds from the premise, established in Part I, that federal courts must apply preclusion principles unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise. Part II considers a number of indicators of Congress's intent, and finds no evidence to rebut the presumption that federal courts must give preclusive weight to certain state decisions. Part III then proposes general guidelines for the application of preclusion doctrines in title VII litigation.

Affirmative Action: Hypocritical Euphemism Or Noble Mandate?, Theodore J. St. Antoine

Articles

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was adopted in an atmosphere of monumental naivete. Congress apparently believed that equal employment opportunity could be achieved simply by forbidding employers or unions to "discriminate" on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin," and expressly disavowed any intention to require "preferential treatment." Perhaps animated by the Supreme Court's stirring desegregation decisions of the 1950's, the proponents of civil rights legislation made "color-blindness" the rallying cry of the hour. Today we know better. The dreary statistics, so familiar to anyone who works in this field, tell the story. …

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 …