Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Execution In Virginia, 1859: The Trials Of Green And Copeland, Steven Lubet
Execution In Virginia, 1859: The Trials Of Green And Copeland, Steven Lubet
Faculty Working Papers
This essay tells the story of Shields Green and John Copeland, two black men who joined John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry. Along with Brown and several others, Green and Copeland were taken prisoner in the aftermath of the failed insurrection, and they were brought to trial in nearby Charlestown on charges of murder and treason. Unlike Brown, who was treated respectfully by his captors, Green and Copeland were handled roughly. Copeland in particular was subjected to a harsh interrogation that was criticized even by pro-slavery Democrats in the North. The black prisoners did, however, have the benefit of a …
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 …
Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Employment Discrimination, Joseph Seiner
Punitive Damages, Due Process, And Employment Discrimination, Joseph Seiner
Faculty Publications
The Supreme Court has failed to provide any substantive guidance on when punitive damages are appropriate in employment discrimination cases since it issued its seminal decision in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n over twelve years ago. The Court has recently expanded its punitive damages jurisprudence in the high-profile decisions of Philip Morris USA v. Williams and Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker. While these cases dramatically altered the way exemplary relief is analyzed in civil cases, the extent to which these decisions apply in the workplace context remains unclear. Surprisingly, there has been almost no academic literature to date explaining how …
Soul Of A Woman: The Sex Stereotyping Prohibition At Work, Kimberly A. Yuracko
Soul Of A Woman: The Sex Stereotyping Prohibition At Work, Kimberly A. Yuracko
Faculty Working Papers
In 1989 the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins declared that sex stereotyping was a prohibited from of sex discrimination at work. This seemingly simple declaration has been the most important development in sex discrimination jurisprudence since the passage of Title VII. It has been used to extend the Act's coverage and protect groups that were previously excluded. Astonishingly, however, the contours, dimensions and requirements of the prohibition have never been clearly articulated by courts or scholars. In this paper I evaluate four interpretations of what the sex stereotyping prohibition might mean in order to determine what it actually …
Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone
Taking In Strays: A Critique Of The Stray Comment Doctrine In Employment Discrimination Law, Kerri Lynn Stone
Faculty Publications
This Article traces the genesis of this misguided doctrine, its proliferation, and it’s many flaws. It explains what the doctrine has come to mean and which facets of a comment can render it “stray” as a matter of law. Part II evaluates this unwieldy and untenable doctrine and its haphazard and misguided application over the past two decades. Specifically, it was never intended to be a formal doctrine. As employed by courts, the term “stray” means too many things and is too ambiguous for the doctrine to be coherent or effective. Moreover, courts ascribe varying degrees of significance to the …
Undermining Congressional Overrides: The Hydra Problem In Statutory Interpretation, Deborah Widiss
Undermining Congressional Overrides: The Hydra Problem In Statutory Interpretation, Deborah Widiss
Articles by Maurer Faculty
Statutory overrides — that is, amendments to supersede a judicial interpretation of a statute — are the primary mechanism by which Congress signals disagreement with court interpretations; they are essential to protect the separation of powers and the promise of legislative supremacy. But in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, the Supreme Court held that Congress’s override of a judicial interpretation of Title VII did not control the interpretation of identical language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and further that Congress’s “neglecting” to amend the ADEA when it amended Title VII was a clear signal that Congress intended the …
Subordinate Bias Liability, Theresa M. Beiner
Subordinate Bias Liability, Theresa M. Beiner
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Plausibility Pleading And Employment Discrimination, Suzette M. Malveaux
Plausibility Pleading And Employment Discrimination, Suzette M. Malveaux
Publications
No abstract provided.