Law Commons^™

Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There Is The Possible Application Of Bostock V. Clayton County, Kevin D. Brown, Lalit Khandare, Annapurna Waughray, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt, Theodore M. Shaw

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article discusses the issue of whether a victim of caste discrimination based on untouchability can assert a claim of intentional employment discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981. This article contends that there are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is a form of religious discrimination under Title VII. The question of whether caste discrimination is a form of race or national origin discrimination under Title VII or Section 1981 depends upon how the courts apply these definitions to caste discrimination based on untouchability. There are legitimate arguments that this form of discrimination is recognized within the concept …

Menstruation Discrimination And The Problem Of Shadow Precedents, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A burgeoning menstrual justice movement calls attention to menstruation-related discrimination in workplaces, schools, prisons, and many other aspects of life. In recent years, a few courts have suggested such discrimination could violate Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment. Their analysis focuses on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII passed to override a Supreme Court case that had held pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination.

This essay, written for a symposium at Columbia Law School, applies my earlier research on the statutory interpretation of Congressional overrides to highlight two potential challenges this …

Proving Discrimination By The Text, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Employment discrimination laws make the “simple but momentous” declaration that it is illegal to deny employment on the basis of race, sex, religion, or other key aspects of identity. But when employees who have been treated unfairly turn to the courts for relief, courts rarely assess whether their claims meet the statutory standard. Instead, they funnel the evidence through a convoluted body of judge-made law known as McDonnell Douglas burden shifting.

This Article lays bare fundamental inconsistencies between the statutes’ causal language, as definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent cases, and the burden-shifting process. In Bostock v. Clayton …

Employment Security: A Comparative Institutional Debate, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

And Promises To Keep: The Future In Employment Discrimination, Julia C. Lamber

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Alternatives To Challenged Employee Selection Criteria: The Significance Of Nonstatistical Evidence In Disparate Impact Cases Under Title Vii, Julia C. Lamber

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In contrast to most recent commentary and a superficial reading of Supreme Court cases, Professor Lamber rehabilitates the concept of a distinct disparate impact theory under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She examines one important evidentiary question-the significance of alternative employee section criteria-to expose underlying policy questions often buried in technical questions of form. Others have argued that the Supreme Court's apparent analytical and evidentiary alignment of disparate impact and disparate treatment cases shows that Title VII bars only "intentional discrimination" and thus the purpose of alternatives evidence is quite limited. Professor Lamber presents a different view, …

Discretionary Decisionmaking: The Application Of Title Vii's Disparate Impact Theory, Julia C. Lamber

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.