Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii
Mary D. Branch, Plaintiff-Appellant, V. Officer Timothy Gorman, Et Al., Defandants-Appellants: Brief Of Appellant, Patricia E. Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Alexa Roggenkamp, Tillman J. Breckenridge, Robert M. Luck Iii
Appellate and Supreme Court Clinic
No abstract provided.
The Long And Winding Road From Monroe To Connick, Sheldon Nahmod
The Long And Winding Road From Monroe To Connick, Sheldon Nahmod
All Faculty Scholarship
In this article, I address the historical and doctrinal development of § 1983 local government liability, beginning with Monroe v. Pape in 1961 and culminating in the Supreme Court’s controversial 2011 failure to train decision in Connick v. Thompson. Connick has made it exceptionally difficult for § 1983 plaintiffs to prevail against local governments in failure to train cases. In the course of my analysis, I also consider the oral argument and opinions in Connick as well as various aspects of § 1983 doctrine. I ultimately situate Connick in the Court’s federalism jurisprudence which doubles back to Justice Frankfurter’s view …
Brief Of Amici Curiae Thirteenth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee And Affirmance, William M. Carter Jr., Dawinder S. Sidhu, Alexander Tsesis, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Brief Of Amici Curiae Thirteenth Amendment Scholars In Support Of Plaintiff-Appellee And Affirmance, William M. Carter Jr., Dawinder S. Sidhu, Alexander Tsesis, Rebecca E. Zietlow
Amici Briefs
In the case of United States v. Hatch, the defendant in a hate crimes prosecution brought the first major challenge to the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. This amicus brief argues that the Act is constitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment.
Title Vii Works - That's Why We Don't Like It, Chuck Henson
Title Vii Works - That's Why We Don't Like It, Chuck Henson
Faculty Publications
In response to the universal belief that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not fulfilling its purpose, this Article presents a different perspective on the reality of this federal employment discrimination law. Title VII is fulfilling the purpose of the Congress that created it. The purpose was not the eradication of all discrimination in employment. The purpose was to balance the prohibition of the most obvious forms of discrimination with the preservation of as much employer decision-making latitude as possible. Moreover, the seminal Supreme Court decision, McDonnell Douglas v. Green, accurately implemented this balance. This Article …