Law Commons^™

Beyond The Cat’S Paw: An Argument For Adopting A “Substantially Influences” Standard For Title Vii And Adea Liability, Tim Davis

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “Susan, an African-American nurse, has worked for a large group of physicians for nearly twenty years and is nearing the end of her career. Susan’s boss has recently retired and has been replaced by a man with an animus toward African-Americans. This has put Susan in a precarious situation.

Instead of overtly discriminating against her, Susan’s supervisor complains to the large medical practice’s personnel committee that Susan’s work is substandard and she no longer is a productive worker. The committee, based on the supervisor’s report, fires Susan.

When Susan goes to court to assert her right not to be …

A More Employee Friendly Standard For Pretext Claims After Ash V. Tyson, Deanna C. Brinkerhoff

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell": Negligent Hiring Law In Virginia And The Necessity Of Legislation To Protect Ex-Convicts From Employment Discrimination, Nancy B. Sasser

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Recreating Diversity In Employment Law By Debunking The Myth Of The Mcdonnell Douglas Monolith, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

The McDonnell-Douglas framework is one of the primary methods used by courts to evaluate discrimination claims based on circumstantial evidence. Although McDonnell-Douglas often is referred to as a singular test, it is actually a collection of different tests gathered rather deceptively under one name. Over the years, federal courts considering state law claims have increasingly applied the McDonnell-Douglas framework to these state claims, without considering whether the same result would occur under state law. The federal courts' rather monolithic view of McDonnell-Douglas is choking debate on important issues of employment law and denying states the ability to weigh in on …

Fighting Discrimination While Fighting Litigation: A Tale Of Two Supreme Courts, Scott A. Moss

Publications

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an odd mix of pro-plaintiff and pro-defendant employment law rulings. It has disallowed harassment lawsuits against employers even with failed antiharassment efforts, construed statutes of limitations narrowly to bar suits about ongoing promotion and pay discrimination, and denied protection to public employee internal complaints. Yet the same Court has issued significant unanimous rulings easing discrimination plaintiffs' burdens of proof.

This jurisprudence is often miscast in simple pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant terms. The Court's duality traces to its inconsistent and unaware adoption of competing policy arguments:

Policy 1: Employees must try internal dispute resolution before suing--or …

The Possibility Of Avoiding Discrimination: Considering Compliance And Liability, Melissa Hart

Publications

The gender discrimination class action Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., whose certification was recently affirmed in the Ninth Circuit, presents a large-scale challenge to the company's excessive reliance on subjective judgment in employment decision-making. It is one in a growing number of similar suits, all of which are fundamentally attacks on the continued operation of entrenched gender stereotypes in the allocation of workplace opportunities. The breadth of this aim is one of the strengths of these suits, but it also raises a significant question: because this kind of litigation targets a broad social phenomenon, is it reasonably possible to …

Eu Sex Equality Post Amsterdam, Ann Numhauser-Henning

Ann Numhauser-Henning

No abstract provided.