Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee
The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee
Chicago-Kent Law Review
Freedom of religion in the workplace has recently become a hot topic with regards to whether U.S. or state laws (mainly contraceptive care and treatment of same-sex, married employees’ spouses) must accommodate certain employer’s religious beliefs or else violate the employer’s constitutional right. However, before this recent employer-centric topic came to light, the main focus was on employees and to what extent employers must accommodate an employee’s religion via Title VII. Most, if not all, academic literature has argued an employer’s duty to accommodate employee’s religion is too weak under Title VII and should thus be increased to the significant …
Conference, Conciliation, And Persuasion: The Seventh Circuit's Groundbreaking Approach To Analyzing The Eeoc's Pre-Suit Obligations, Lisa M. Deleon
Conference, Conciliation, And Persuasion: The Seventh Circuit's Groundbreaking Approach To Analyzing The Eeoc's Pre-Suit Obligations, Lisa M. Deleon
Seventh Circuit Review
In EEOC v. Mach Mining, LLC, the Seventh Circuit sharply diverged with its sister circuits when it held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)'s statutorily mandated conciliation process is immune from judicial review. In Mach Mining, the Seventh Circuit addressed the provision contained in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that requires the EEOC to engage in "informal methods of conference, conciliation, and persuasion" with an employer before it can file a discrimination lawsuit against that employer. These pre-suit negotiations, or "conciliation," provide an opportunity for the EEOC to reach an out-of-court agreement with …
The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa
The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa
Chicago-Kent Law Review
In Smith v. Bray, the Seventh Circuit, on a case of first impression, determined that supervisors with retaliatory motives can and should be individually liable under section 1981 when they cause the employer to retaliate against an employee. This article argues against the Seventh Circuit’s holding for four reasons. First, courts are required to analyze section 1981 the same way they analyze Title VII, and Title VII does not allow for individual supervisor liability. Second, the Seventh Circuit justified its decision based on a flawed comparison between section 1981 and section 1983, a similar but distinct civil rights statute. Third, …