Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Robinson V. Shell Oil Co.: Policy-Not Ambiguity-Drives The Supreme Court's Decision To Broaden Title Vii's Retaliation Coverage, Barry T. Meek
Robinson V. Shell Oil Co.: Policy-Not Ambiguity-Drives The Supreme Court's Decision To Broaden Title Vii's Retaliation Coverage, Barry T. Meek
University of Richmond Law Review
Before the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., a majority of the circuit courts were blurring seemingly unambiguous language to expand Title VII's coverage to comport with amiable policy goals. Only policy justifications could explain the courts' willingness to cover postemployment retaliation based on language that prohibits an employer from discriminating "against his employees" and that further defines employees as those persons "employed by an employer." Clearly, the plain meaning of such language envisions that persons protected under Title VII have an existing employment relationship with the covered employer at the time of the alleged retaliatory conduct. …
The Age Discrimination In Employment Act At Thirty: Where It's Been, Where It Is Today, Where It's Going, Howard C. Eglit
The Age Discrimination In Employment Act At Thirty: Where It's Been, Where It Is Today, Where It's Going, Howard C. Eglit
University of Richmond Law Review
Thirty-three years ago, in the course of debating the legislation that eventually was enacted into law as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress began-albeit very tentatively-to address age discrimination in the workplace. While it rejected attempts to amend the 1964 bill to include age within the then-pending menu of proscribed bases for workplace decision-making, i.e., race, color, national origin, religion, and sex, Congress did direct the Secretary of Labor to undertake a study to ascertain the nature and extent of age bias in employment and to make recommendations for dealing with this discrimination, if it in fact existed.