Law Commons^™

Conditions Of Participation: Incorporating The History Of Hospital Desegregation, Sallie Sanford

Articles

Our students ought to know about the history of formal hospital segregation and desegregation. To that end, this article urges those who teach foundational health law and policy courses to do three things. First, to teach the Simkins case. Second, to swap out the usual Medicare signing ceremony picture for one that includes W. Montague Cobb, M.D., Ph.D. Third, to highlight how the implementation of that program for the elderly led, in a matter of months, to the desegregation of hospitals throughout the country.

Due Process Deportations, Angelica Chazaro

Articles

Should pro-immigrant advocates pursue federally funded counsel for all immigrants facing deportation? For most pro-immigrant advocates and scholars, the answer is self-evident: More lawyers for immigrants would mean more justice for immigrants, and thus, the federal government should fund such lawyers. Moreover, the argument goes, federally funded counsel for immigrants would improve due process and fairness, as well as make immigration enforcement more efficient. This Article argues the opposite: Federally funded counsel is the wrong goal. The majority of expulsions of immigrants now happen outside immigration courts— and thus are impervious to immigration lawyering. Even for those who make it …

Violence Everywhere: How The Current Spectacle Of Black Suffering, Police Violence, And The Violence Of Judicial Interpretation Undermine The Rule Of Law, David B. Owens

Articles

No abstract provided.

Awakening The American Jury: Did The Killing Of George Floyd Alter Juror Deliberations Forever?, Tamara F. Lawson

Articles

In the summer of 2020, the witnessing of George Floyd's death triggered an outpouring of public expression far beyond other cases in modern times. While the experience led some to advocate for reform and participate in antiracism rallies, marches, and campaigns, it also forced many others into internal reflection, awareness, and awakening to the knowledge of a lived experience with police different from their own. The gruesome realities of the video were irreconcilable with those prior beliefs and did not comport with any moral or legal standards of dignity. Prior to witnessing George Floyd's death on video at the hands …

Sex-Based Discrimination In Health Care Under Section 1557: The New Final Rule And Supreme Court Developments, Brietta R. Clark, Elizabeth Pendo, Gabriella Garbero

Articles

One of the primary goals of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) has been the reduction and elimination of health disparities, generally defined as population-level health differences that adversely affect disadvantaged groups, including disparities associated with sex and gender. Many of PPACA’s general provisions — expanded access to public and private insurance coverage, guarantee issue and pricing reforms, and coverage mandates — were expected to reduce barriers and eliminate discriminatory practices targeting or disproportionately impacting women and transgender individuals. Provisions like the Women’s Health Amendment, which mandated women’s preventive healthcare to be covered without cost sharing, and the …

Reinvigorating Commonality: Gender And Class Actions, Brooke D. Coleman, Elizabeth G. Porter

Articles

In this Article, we examine the interplay of Rule 23(b)(2) class actions, feminism, and Title VII sex discrimination doctrine over the past fifty years to show that the theoretical concept of commonality—cohesion, unity—in the women’s movement has had a significant impact on the ability of women to seek collective redress for workplace discrimination through class actions. We describe how the four "waves” of feminism since the 1960s find corresponding analogues in the development of Title VII class action law. Beginning in the civil rights era, feminism became an entrenched part of mainstream America Over time, however, feminism’s influence waned as …

Hacking Qualified Immunity: Camera Power And Civil Rights Settlements, Mary D. Fan

Articles

Excessive force cases are intensely fact-specific. Did the suspect resist, necessitating the use offorce? What threat did the suspect pose, if any? Was the use of force excessive in light of the situation? These are judgment calls based on myriad facts that differ from case to case. Establishing what really happened forces courts and juries to wade into a fact-bound morass filled with fiercely conflicting defendant-said, police-said battles.

Now an evidentiary transformation is underway. We are in an era where the probability of a police encounter being recorded has never been higher. With the rise of recording—by the public as …

Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group?* (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Reply Brief Of Petitioners. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1645, 2016 Wl 1555013+A12, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") prohibits state and local governments from imposing "a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person": (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest," and (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). The Question Presented is: Whether RLUIPA requires that prison officials actually consider and demonstrate a sufficient basis for rejecting widely …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., held in an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that a plaintiff may ordinarily prove the existence of an unlawful motive by establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating the falsity of the employer’s proffered explanation for the disputed employment, and that a plaintiff who does so need not also offer some other additional evidence of discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit held in this Title VII action that the existence of an unlawful motive may not be established in that manner; a plaintiff who establishes a prima facie case and the …

Petion For A Writ Of Certiorari. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 542, 2016 Wl 447654, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED In Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015), this Court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), renders unlawful an absolute ban on inmates' wearing a beard for religious reasons. The Eleventh Circuit, subsequent to and despite this Court's decision in Holt, rejected a RLUIPA challenge to Alabama's similarly inflexible policy prohibiting all male inmates from wearing long hair for religious reasons. A vast majority of states, the District of Columbia, and all federal prisons accommodate inmates whose religious practices include wearing beards or long hair. The Question Presented is: Whether Alabama's …

"The More Things Change . . .": New Moves For Legitimizing Racial Discrimination In A "Post-Race" World, Mario L. Barnes

Articles

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Reply Brief. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 5475026, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which forbids age-based discrimination against state and local government employees, preclude those employees from bringing a section 1983 action to redress age discrimination that violates the Equal Protection Clause?

Brief For Appellants. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, 135 S.Ct. 1257 (2015) (No. 13-895), 2014 Wl 4059779, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher, Edward Still, U.W. Clemon

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Alabama’s legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Volume 1 Of 2 (Petition With Appendix Pages 1a-563a). Lynch V. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 53 (2014) (No. 13-1232), 2014 U.S. Lexis 5672, Larry T. Menefee, Edward Still, Eric Schnapper, James U. Blacksher

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

(1) The district court found that several provisions of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 were adopted for the purpose of limiting the imposition on whites of property taxes that would pay for the education of black public school students. The first question presented is: Do black public school children and their parents have standing to challenge the validity under the Equal Protection Clause of state constitutional provisions adopted for the purpose of limiting the imposition on whites of property taxes that would be used to educate black public school students?

(2) In 2004 the District Judge in Knight …

Gay Rights, Equal Protection, And The Classification-Framing Quandary, Peter Nicolas

Articles

Commentators and lower courts will speculate for some time on the actual holding and potential sweep of the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor v. United States [699 F.3d 169, 175 (2d Cir. 2012), aff'd, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013)], as well as how the Court might have resolved Perry v. Brown [671 F.3d 1052, 1063 (9th Cir. 2012), vacated and remanded sub nom. Hollingsworth v. Perry, 133 S. Ct. 2652 (2013)] on the merits.

Of at least equal and perhaps greater importance, however, is a subtle yet critical unresolved threshold question lurking in the background of these two decisions, …

Racial Profiling As Collective Definition, Trevor G. Gardner

Articles

Economists and other interested academics have committed significant time and effort to developing a set of circumstances under which an intelligent and circumspect form of racial profiling can serve as an effective tool in crime finding–the specific objective of finding criminal activity afoot. In turn, anti-profiling advocates tend to focus on the immediate efficacy of the practice, the morality of the practice, and/or the legality of the practice.

However, the tenor of this opposition invites racial profiling proponents to develop more surgical profiling techniques to employ in crime finding. In this article, I review the literature on group distinction to …

Reply Brief. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4419, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Respondent. Madigan V. Levin, 571 U.S. 1 (2013) (No. 12-872), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3187, Eric Schnapper, Harvey Levin, Edward Theobald

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioners. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2013 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3164, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Brush V. Sears Holding Corp., 568 U.S. 1143 (2013) (No. 12-268), 2013 U.S. Lexis 925, Eric W. Scharf, Wayne R. Atkins, Eric Schnapper, Brian D. Buckstein

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee because he or she opposed discrimination forbidden by Title VII. The lower courts are divided as to how such anti-retaliation provisions apply to management officials, such as personnel or EEO officials, whose duties include assuring compliance with Title VII or implementing an employer’s anti-discrimination policy.

The question presented is: Are management officials: (1) subject to exclusion from protection under section 704(a) if their actions are within the scope of their official duties (the rule in the Fifth, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits),
(2) protected under …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lawson V. Fmr Llc, 134 S. Ct. 1158 (2014) (No. 12-3), 2012 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2827, Eric Schnapper, Indira Talwani, Kevin G. Powers

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 806 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, forbids a publicly traded company, a mutual fund, or “any ... contractor [or] subcontractor ... of such company [to] ... discriminate against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment because of” certain protected activity. (Emphasis added). The First Circuit held that under section 1514A such contractors and subcontractors, if privately-held, may retaliate against their own employees, and are prohibited only from retaliating against employees of the public companies with which they work. The question presented is: Is an employee of a privately-held contractor or subcontractor of …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Dellinger V. Science Applications International Corp. (No. 11-598), 2011 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2153, Eric Schnapper, Zachary A. Kitts, John J. Rigby

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the anti-retaliation provision in section 15(a)(3) of the Fair Labor Standards Act apply to retaliation by an employer against a job applicant? (2) Is the private cause action provided by section 16(b) of the FLSA available to a job applicant who is retaliated against by an employer?

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Opp V. Office Of The State's Attorney Of Cook County, 565 U.S. 815 (2011) (No. 10-1163), 2011 U.S. Lexis 6893, Eric Schnapper, Brian R. Holman, Dennis H. Stefanowicz, Tara Beth Davis, Susan Bogart

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Five major federal employment statutes, including in this case the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, exclude certain government workers "at the policymaking level" from the definition of employees protected by those laws. The question presented is: who is a worker "on the policymaking level"?

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Thompson V. North American Stainless, Lp, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (No. 09-291), 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2135, Eric Schnapper, David O'Brien Suetholz, Lisa S. Blatt, Anthony Franze

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.