Law Commons^™

Distinguishing Disparate Treatment From Disparate Impact; Confusion On The Court, Michael C. Harper

Faculty Scholarship

In two decisions in the 2014-2015 Term, Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, Inc., the Court seemed to give contradictory answers to an important unresolved conceptual definitional question: Does disparate treatment include assigning members of a protected group based on their protected status to a larger disfavored group that is defined by neutral principles and that includes others who are not members of the protected group? Or does such assignment have only a disparate impact on the protected status group?

In Young, the first of these decisions, all members of the …

Focusing The Multifactor Test For Employee Status: The Restatement’S Entrepreneurial Formulation, Michael C. Harper

Faculty Scholarship

The American Law Institute’s twenty-first century mission to restate for the first time American employment law carried the responsibility to provide more clear guidance on the law’s critical distinction between employees and independent contractors. This distinction delineates the scope not only of federal employee protection and benefit statutes, but also of employee protections and benefits conferred by state statutory and common law.

A Restatement of Employment Law, however, like any Restatement, could not formulate clearer or otherwise more desirable doctrine from the whole cloth of the views and values of the Reporters or the ALI membership. The Restatement could not …

Foreword: The Restatement Of Employment Law Project, Michael C. Harper, Samuel Estreicher, Matthew T. Bodie, Stewart J. Schwab

Faculty Scholarship

After over a dozen years of work, the American Law Institute (ALI or Institute)'s Restatement of Employment Law has been completed. The membership of the ALI, the nation's leading private organization dedicated to clarifying and improving the law, approved the proposed final draft, subject to editing, at its May 2014 annual meeting. The final edits are done and the volume is now available both electronically and as a book to practitioners, judges, scholars, and law libraries around the country and world.

We have had the honor to serve as Reporters for the Restatement of Employment Law and are pleased to …

After Tackett: Incomplete Contracts For Post-Employment Healthcare, Maria O'Brien

Faculty Scholarship

This paper examines the recent U.S. Supreme Court retiree health care decision in Tackett v. M & G Polymers and focuses, in particular, on the ostensibly odd silence with respect to a critical contract term — whether the parties in fact agreed that these benefits were vested. Although the union in Tackett insisted these welfare benefits were clearly intended to vest and the employer now asserts they can be modified at any time, the collective bargaining agreement and supporting documents are ambiguous on this question. This paper examines how and why this “silence” persisted for so many decades and concludes …

Class-Based Adjudication Of Title Vii Claims In The Age Of The Roberts Court, Michael C. Harper

Faculty Scholarship

This article considers two barriers to class-based adjudication of Title VII claims erected by the Roberts Court: (1) the Court's interpretation of Rule 23, primarily in Wal-Mart v. Dukes; and (2) the Court's interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in a series of decisions, both employment-related and not. The article contends that it is the latter group of decisions that are the more significant for Title VII private aggregate litigation as well as for other types of private litigation. The Wal-Mart Court predictably did not expand an employer's obligations to avert discrimination by its agents, and its predictable interpretations …