Law Commons^™

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Comments On The Agency And Its Role In Employment Discrimination Law, Mary Kathryn Lynch

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Sexual Harassment And Labor Arbitration, Susan A. Fitzgibbon

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination In The United States In 1989: Revisions Or A Pause, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Citizenship, Aliengage, And Ethnic Origin Discrimination In Employment Under The Law Of The United States, Mack A. Player

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Equality And The European Union, Elizabeth F. Defeis

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

"That Gear Stick Is Not Your Husband's P----." Why The Dissent In Vance V. Ball State University Got It Right, And A Comparison Of The Law Of Employer Vicarious Liability For Sexual Harassment In The United States And South Africa, Justin A. Behravesh

Justin A. Behravesh

This article provides unique critical analysis of the United States Supreme Court's June 2013 decision of Vance v. Ball State University, by comparing that decision to recent South African common law and statutory developments. I argue that Vance's redefinition of what constitutes a "supervisor" for purposes of vicarious liability will have devastating effect on working women in the United States. Ultimately using South African law as a model framework, I conclude that the factors that should trigger vicarious liability should be based on policy concerns, not arbitrary definitions of what constitutes a "supervisor."

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Debord V. Mercy Health System Of Kansas, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2664 (2014) (No. 13-1118), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1120, Eric Schnapper, Mark A. Buchanan

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED

Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids an employer to retaliate against any employee because that worker "opposed" unlawful discrimination.

The question presented is:

Does section 704(a) prohibit retaliation against a worker because of the worker's statements:

(1) only when the statements are made to the worker's own employer or to federal or state anti-discrimination agencies (the rule in the Tenth and Fourth Circuits), or (2) also when the worker's statements are made to any other person (the rule in the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Circuits)?

The Tort Label, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Courts and commentators often label federal discrimination statutes as torts. Since the late 1980s, the courts increasingly applied tort concepts to these statutes. This Article discusses how courts placed employment discrimination law within the organizational umbrella of tort law without examining whether the two areas share enough theoretical and doctrinal affinities.

While discrimination statutes are torts in some general sense that they do not arise out of criminal law and are not solely contractual, it is far from clear that these statutes are enough like traditional torts to justify the reflexive and automatic use of tort law. Employment discrimination statutes …

Responding To Environmental Injustice: The Civil Rights Act And American Federal Institutional And Systemic Barriers To Private Redress Of Disparate Environmental Harm, Michael B. Jones, Peter J. Jacques

Florida A & M University Law Review

This article discusses the use of private action in federal institutions for relief from disparate racial impacts. The courts have eliminated consideration of § 602 disparate impact regulations as the basis for a private right of action challenging environmental harms. Legislative action seems unlikely in this era of gridlock and partisan polarization. Agency action seems to offer the most avenues for consideration of environmental justice concerns. However, agencies are bureaucratic and subject to election results, Congressional oversight and budgetary limitations, and backlogs of determination of environmental justice complaints. Deeply rooted systemic institutional racism further constrains possible reforms to the federal …

Race Inequity Fifty Years Later: Language Rights Under The Civil Rights Act Of 1964, Jasmine Gonzales Rose

Faculty Scholarship

As Latinos have become the largest racialized minority in the United States, we should ask whether the civil rights laws of yesterday are equipped to address the race problems of today. Half a century after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, racial discrimination still exists, but it manifests itself differently. Rather than explicitly barring someone from employment, education, public accommodations, or civic participation on the basis of his or her race, racially discriminatory exclusion is often couched in seemingly race-neutral terms. English language requirements are one example of this. A sign outside a restaurant stating, “No Mexicans, …

Let's Pretend Discrimination Is A Tort, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

In the past decade, the Supreme Court has repeatedly invoked tort common law to interpret federal discrimination statutes. During this same time period, the Supreme Court increasingly invoked textualism as the appropriate methodology for interpreting these statutes. One immediate effect of these two trends - tortification and textualism - is to restrict discrimination law by tightening causal standards.

This Article explores how interpreting discrimination statutes through the lenses of tort law and textualism can expand, rather than restrict, discrimination law. It assumes that courts will continue to characterize discrimination statutes as torts and as deriving from the common law, despite …

Torts And Civil Rights Law: Migration And Conflict: Symposium Introduction, Sandra F. Sperino

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

Curiously, the connection between civil rights and civil wrongs has not been a topic that has captivated the attention of large numbers of legal scholars over the years. The distance that has developed between the two fields likely reflects their placement on opposite sides of the public-private divide, with Title VII and other anti-discrimination statutes forming part of public law, while torts is a classic, private law subject. To compound the division, both subjects are to some extent still under-theorized. Employment discrimination scholarship is often caught up in the process of analyzing the doctrinal implications of the latest Supreme Court …

The Agency Roots Of Disparate Impact, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

The disparate impact strand of antidiscrimination law provides the possibility of challenging harmful employment, education, housing, and other public and private policies and practices without the often-difficult burden of proving intentional discrimination. And yet the disparate impact standard seems to be facing its own burdens. Rulings by the Supreme Court in recent years have shaken the disparate impact standard's footing. In Ricci v. De- Stefano, the Court rejected a frontal assault to the disparate impact standard under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but cast the standard as at odds with Title VII's true core – …

Lawyering That Has No Name: Title Vi And The Meaning Of Private Enforcement, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

On the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this Essay examines the problem of private enforcement of Title VI. The Essay reviews the unduly constrained approach to private enforcement taken by courts in prominent decisions such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Alexander v. Sandoval. Yet the Essay argues that to focus primarily on private court enforcement of Title VI will continue to relegate the provision to the margins of civil rights discourse, to make the provision appear largely as the "sleeping giant" of civil rights law. The practice …