Law Commons^™

Recent Case Developments, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Recent case developments in Insurance Law in the years 1999 and 2000.

Disparate Impact Discrimination: American Oddity Or Internationally Accepted Concept?, Elaine W. Shoben, Rosemary C. Hunter

Scholarly Works

Griggs v. Duke Power Co. was a landmark United States decision because it recognized that barriers to equal employment opportunity need not be overt and that practices that appear neutral on their face may nonetheless have an unjustifiably exclusionary effect on protected groups. This American insight has not been lost on other Western legal systems in the context of their antidiscrimination statutes and opinions. This article explores the favorable reception that disparate impact analysis has had bother in other countries with similar legal heritages and in international law.

Despite the wide acceptance of disparate impact analysis in the international marketplace …

Affirmative Action Awash In Confusion: Backward-Looking-Future-Oriented Justifications For Race-Conscious Measures, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, decided Taxman v. Board of Education of the Township of Piscataway, in August 1996. Eight judges agreed that he Board of Education of Piscataway Township, New Jersey violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by using race, in accordance with its affirmative action policy, to break a tie between two teachers in the Business Department at Piscataway High School when determining which teacher to lay off. A strong dissent by Chief Judge Sloviter was joined by two other Court of Appeals judges. The majority decision is remarkable in its breadth, …

The Emerging Cronyism Defense And Affirmative Action: A Critical Perspective On The Distinction Between Colorblind And Race-Conscious Decision Making Under Title Vii, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

In Foster v. Dalton, the United States Supreme Court approved of the promotion of a less-qualified white male over a better-qualified black female under very suspicious circumstances; in Taxman v. Board of Education, the court invalidated the retention of an equally qualified black female over her white counterpart. The law justifies the disparate results in Foster and Taxman by invoking the principle of race and gender “neutrality” in the decision making process. Under this principle, the law generally prohibits employment determinations based consciously on a person's race or gender. An exception to the “neutrality principle” of Title VII is the …

Condescending Contradictions: Richard Posner's Pragmatism And Pregnancy Discrimination, Ann C. Mcginley, Jeffrey W. Stempel

Scholarly Works

Richard Posner’s, the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, judicial actions have been criticized, primarily for inconsistently commingling economic analysis with other approaches to decisionmaking in an effort to reach personally pleasing results that are at odds with Posner's professed commitment to methodological rigor. Although criticism of Posner's judging is diverse, a common theme is that he too frequently marshals his argumentative force merely to uphold the economic rights of the powerful. In other words, according to the critics, after the rush of intellectual excitement subsides, litigants and the justice system are left …

Reinventing Reality: The Impermissible Intrusion Of After-Acquired Evidence In Title Vii Litigation, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

This Article analyzes the use of after-acquired evidence to defeat a discrimination victim's claim against her employer. The use of the Mount Healthy and Price Waterhouse mixed motives analysis in after-acquired evidence cases is misplaced because it is impossible for the permissible motive—resume fraud—to have been a factor in the adverse employment decision. Furthermore, after the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, it would be an improper judicial intrusion upon the power of the legislature for courts to apply mixed motives analysis to these cases. Besides the constitutional limitation on the judiciary's power created by the Civil Rights …

Credulous Courts And The Tortured Trilogy: The Improper Use Of Summary Judgment In Title Vii And Adea Cases, Ann C. Mcginley

Scholarly Works

Civil rights are under siege. In mid-1989, the United States Supreme Court decided several cases that severely limit the civil rights claims and remedies available to a plaintiff claiming employment discrimination. This Article examines the gradual and continuing erosion of the factfinder's role in federal employment discrimination cases and its replacement by an increasing use of summary judgment through which the courts make pretrial determinations formerly reserved for the factfinder at trial. This trend not only represents a major shift in court procedure and, in the case of age discrimination claims, a transfer of power from juries to judges, but …

Watson V. Ft. Worth Bank And Trust: The Changing Face Of Disparate Impact, Linda H. Edwards

Scholarly Works

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 constitutes this country’s first serious commitment to eradicating the enormous economic disadvantages caused by hundreds of years of racial and gender-related prejudice. But there is also cause for concern. While members of once excluded groups have entered the mid-level workforce, most have not progressed to top-level positions. Perhaps not surprisingly, the elimination of barriers to mid-level employment has spotlighted the unique barriers to equal employment in top-level jobs. Title VII’s capacity to deal effectively with these barriers will be its major challenge for the next quarter-century. Its success will depend, in …

Rationality - And The Irrational Underinclusiveness Of The Civil Rights Laws, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Congress has enacted a series of civil rights laws designed to protect individuals from public an private forms of irrational discrimination. To be lawful, such civil rights statutes must conform with the definition of rationality required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Yet, in one fashion, these statutes are as irrational as the behavior they seek to control. The statutes protect only certain classes of individuals in limited instances. This article argues that the existing civil rights laws, although integral to a free society, are but a first step. The statute will never be fully rational, never completely fair, until …

Mutable Characteristics And The Definition Of Discrimination Under Title Vii, Peter Brandon Bayer

Scholarly Works

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits racial, religious, gender, ethnic, and color discrimination in employment. In most instances the courts interpret the statute very broadly. However, a line of cases holds that discrimination predicated on a forbidden criterion coupled with a ‘mutable’—easily altered—characteristic does not constitute a violation of Title VII. This Article attempts to debunk the ‘mutable’ characteristic doctrine by discerning a general definition of discrimination under Title VII and applying that definition to demonstrate that mutability analysis contradicts the letter and spirit of the law.

The Use Of Statistics To Prove Intentional Employment Discrimination, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

Two decades after the once fiery debate about the meaning of "discrimination" in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the issue has recently been rekindled. In simplest form, the question is whether the type of discrimination statutorily prohibited is only purposeful exclusions, or whether it includes unintended exclusions caused by tests or requirements that disproportionately affect a group defined by race, sex, or ethnicity. The Supreme Court's decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. resolved the question in one major area, thus causing the issue to lie dormant since 1971. Griggs held that liability under …

Compound Discrimination: The Interaction Of Race And Sex In Employment Discrimination, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

The courts have not yet clearly resolved whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits compound discrimination, that is, discrimination based on a combination of protected characteristics—such as race and sex-rather than single protected characteristics—such as race alone or sex alone. Professor Shoben argues that both the logic and the legislative history of Title VII support the view that compound discrimination is separately protected. She then offers a systematic method for statistically determining whether an employer is discriminating on the basis of a combination of characteristics. Finally, Professor Shoben considers whether single plaintiffs can, consistently with rule …

In Defense Of Disparate Impact Analysis Under Title Vii: A Reply To Dr. Cohn, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

The preceding article by Dr. Richard M. Cohn' concerning the use of statistics in Title VII employment discrimination cases makes three basic points. First, Cohn rejects the methods used to assess disproportionate differences between groups on tests, such as ability tests. He finds fault both with the approach of the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures and with the method based on finding statistical significance that I have advocated. Second, he also rejects the approach courts have adopted for evaluating the relative exclusion of groups defined by race, sex, or national origin in the employer's work force. He argues that …

Book Review, Elaine W. Shoben

Scholarly Works

Quantitative Methods in Law represents the efforts of one legal scholar to apply mathematical probability and statistics to the solution of a wide range of legal problems. Michael O. Finkelstein has republished in book form a collection of his articles, beginning with his most famous and most widely cited: the application of mathematical probability to jury discrimination cases. After leading the reader through a series of fascinating applications of statistical problem solving to an impressively wide range of legal situations, the book concludes with the final words of one of the most engaging battles among legal scholars in recent years: …