Law Commons^™

Salary History And Pay Parity, Jennifer Safstrom

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Inquiries about a prospective applicant's salary history are controversial because of the role such inequities play in the broader gender pay equity debate. The use of prior salary to determine compensation can perpetuate pay discrimination for women, especially women of color, and lock them into cycles of underpayment when these inequities are carried over from job to job. Reliance on salary history perpetuates historical discrimination and is antithetical to the language and purpose of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the legal reasoning relied upon to interpret these laws, especially …

Uncertainty In Employee Status Across Federal Law, Ryan G. Vacca

Law Faculty Scholarship

Numerous federal statutes rely on a distinction between employees and independent contractors. Based on a series of Supreme Court decisions from 1968 through 2003, courts and administrative agencies have used a common law multifactor test to draw this distinction. In an effort to enhance predictability and certainty within and across legislation, these cases have rejected a purposive approach in applying the test. But the Supreme Court has never said which, if any, of the factors are the most important in the analysis, nor has anyone determined whether the underlying purpose—enhancing predictability and certainty—has been attained.

This empirical Study uses content …

The Statutory Public Interest In Closing The Pay Gap, Stephanie Bornstein

Stephanie Bornstein

This Essay explores the role that the statutory public interest should play in the enforcement of rights under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). Current data shows that, even fifty-five years after the enactment of federal law outlawing sex based pay discrimination, the gender pay gap inflicts huge costs on women, their families, and the U.S. economy, echoing the public concerns that led to the statute’s original passage. That Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and EPA rights cannot be waived by an employee calls into question two common employer pay-setting practices often excused under federal law: setting …

Thinking Slow About Abercrombie & Fitch: Straightening Out The Judicial Confusion In The Lower Courts, Bruce N. Cameron, Blaine L. Hutchison

Pepperdine Law Review

In Abercrombie & Fitch, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally changed the way that Title VII religious accommodation cases are litigated and evaluated. This paper analyzes Abercrombie, explains how the Court eliminated religious accommodation as a freestanding cause of action, and suggests an altered proof framework for plaintiffs seeking an accommodation. The paper also explores the conflict between employee privacy rights and classic proof requirements for religious sincerity. The lower courts have largely failed to apprehend the change mandated by Abercrombie, with the result that their opinions are in disarray. The paper includes a chart organizing the diverse lower court opinions.

Brief Of Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. Francois, And Eric Schnapper As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioner In Peterson V. Linear Controls Incorporated, No. 18-1401 (U.S. Supreme Court June 6, 2019), Brian Wolfman, Aderson B. François

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

In Title VII disparate-treatment, employment-discrimination cases, the term “adverse employment action” originally developed as judicial shorthand for the statute’s text, which broadly prohibits any discriminatory conduct by an employer against an employee based on the employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. See 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1). But what started simply as shorthand has taken on a life of its own and now improperly limits the statute’s reach. The Fifth Circuit’s version of the adverse-employment-action rule stands out as especially improper: Only an “ultimate employment decision”—a refusal to hire, a firing, a demotion, or the like—constitutes impermissible discrimination.

In this …

Is Title Vii > Ix?: Does Title Vii Preempt Title Ix Sex Discrimination Claims In Higher Ed Employment?, Mckenzie Miller

Catholic University Law Review

Across all job sectors, women working full-time earned about 80 percent of what men earned in 2016. Within higher education this gender gap persists in salary, hiring, promotions, and other aspects of academic employment. Professors can seemingly attempt to remedy this under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or Title IX of the Education Amendments, both of which prohibit sex discrimination in higher education. Circuits, however, have split as to whether Title VII preempts Title IX in actions for employment discrimination in higher education.

The Third Circuit revived this split in Doe v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, and …

Back To The Drawing Board! Legislating Hollywood, Christina Shu Jien Chong

Georgia State University Law Review

The United States Department of Justice “contended that equal employment opportunity in the broadcast industry could ‘contribute significantly toward reducing . . . discrimination in other industries’ because of the ‘enormous impact . . . television . . . [has] upon American life.’” Courts have also recognized that “communities . . . ’[must] take an active interest in the . . . quality of [television programming because television] has a vast impact on their lives and the lives of their children.’” Unfortunately, Hollywood continues to promote an insular culture that excludes minorities from influential behind-the-camera and on-screen positions.

Although the …

Split Over Sex: Federal Circuits And Executive Agencies Split Over Sexual Orientation Discrimination Under Title Vii, Darria Turner

Catholic University Law Review

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 expressly prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of an individual’s sex. Since its enactment, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has definitively stated whether sex discrimination based on sexual orientation is protected under Title VII. Though the judicial interpretation of sex has evolved, courts have routinely held that the protections of Title VII do not extend to claims based on sexual orientation discrimination. As three circuits faced these claims, a split was created in the circuits as well as in the two agencies tasked with the enforcement of Title VII. This …

Title Ix And Title Vii: Parallel Remedies In Combatting Sex Discrimination In Educational Employment, Lynn Ridgeway Zehrt

Marquette Law Review

The federal circuit courts of appeals are divided over the proper relationship between Title IX of the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1972 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Specifically, the federal courts disagree over whether an employee of an educational institution may sue her employer for employment discrimination under either Title IX or Title VII. Some courts have concluded that these employees may not bring employment discrimination claims under Title IX, holding that Title VII provides the sole avenue for obtaining monetary relief for employment discrimination against educational institutions. Other courts have reached the opposite …

Battle Of The Sexes: Title Vii’S Failure To Protect Women From Discrimination Against Sex-Linked Conditions, Brooks Land

Georgia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Harassment, Technology, And The Modern Worker, Joseph Seiner

Faculty Publications

This symposium paper explores why sex discrimination is so prevalent in the technology sector workplace. This paper further examines what can be done to address these problems, and how employers can work to minimize the types of gender discrimination issues that currently exist in the modern economy. This ongoing issue must be examined much more closely by technology companies given the potential for this type of harm across the entire sector. There are many things that can be done to reduce this form of discrimination and to limit the potential liability for employers.

Following The Fifth Circuit: Title Vii As The Sole Remedy For Employment Discrimination On The Basis Of Sex In Educational Institutions Receiving Federal Funds, Alicia Martinez

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

No abstract provided.

Coworker Retaliation In The #Metoo Era, Deborah Brake

Articles

The national firestorm sparked by #MeToo has galvanized feminist legal scholars to reconsider the Title VII framework governing workplace sexual harassment and the potential for #MeToo to transform workplace culture in a way that Title VII, to date, has not. In the analysis of #MeToo’s prospects for change, less attention has been paid to how Title VII’s protection from retaliation intersects with the movement. One particular aspect of retaliation law – coworker retaliation – has thus far escaped the attention of legal scholars. Already underdeveloped as a species of retaliation law, coworker retaliation holds particular resonance for the #MeToo movement …

The Future Of Disability Rights Protections For Transgender People, Kevin M. Barry, Jennifer L. Levi

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Application Of Title Ii Of The Americans With Disabilities Act To Employment Discrimination: Why The Circuits Have Gotten It Wrong, William Brooks

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Purposes Of Title Vii, Chuck Henson

Faculty Publications

Some things have an obvious and enduring purpose. The purpose of a hammer is to drive nails. The purpose of a saw is to cut wood. The purpose of nails is to fasten, for example, the freshly cut wood by being driven by a hammer. For other things, like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Act" or "1964 Act"), purpose seems mutable or hidden. For example, finishing the sentence today: "The purpose of Title VII is . . ." presents a problem. It has presented the same problem since 1964. What Title VII does is not obvious …

The Statutory Public Interest In Closing The Pay Gap, Stephanie Bornstein

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Essay explores the role that the statutory public interest should play in the enforcement of rights under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA). Current data shows that, even fifty-five years after the enactment of federal law outlawing sex based pay discrimination, the gender pay gap inflicts huge costs on women, their families, and the U.S. economy, echoing the public concerns that led to the statute’s original passage. That Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and EPA rights cannot be waived by an employee calls into question two common employer pay-setting practices often excused under federal law: setting …

Antidiscriminatory Algorithms, Stephanie Bornstein

UF Law Faculty Publications

Can algorithms be used to advance equality goals in the workplace? A handful of legal scholars have raised concerns that the use of big data at work may lead to protected class discrimination that could fall outside the reach of current antidiscrimination law. Existing scholarship suggests that, because algorithms are “facially neutral,” they pose no problem of unequal treatment. As a result, algorithmic discrimination cannot be challenged using a disparate treatment theory of liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Instead, it presents a problem of unequal outcomes, subject to challenge using Title VII’s …

Inclusion Riders And Diversity Mandates, Emily Waldman

Belmont Law Review

This article examines inclusion riders, the bona fide occupational qualification defense, undue hardship, and equal burdens in the context of Title VII's prohibition of differential treatment. It also addresses the concept of 'diversity preference', affirmative action programs, and how employers can satisfy diversity preference without being discriminatory.

Harassment: A Separate Claim?, Sandra Sperino

Belmont Law Review

This article argues that harassment is not a separate claim under Title VII by reviewing the history of discrimination law, examining Title VII's statutory language, and Supreme Court cases and procedural ambiguity in harassment law. It discusses the pitfalls of identifying harassment as a separate claim, and recommends how plaintiffs might plead harassment within the scope of Title VII.

Title Vii Discrimination Protections & Lgbt Employees: The Need For Consistency, Certainty & Equality Post-Obergefell, Regina Hillman

Belmont Law Review

This article explores employment protections against discriminatory practices for LGBT Americans. Factors such as jurisdiction, employment type, and geography all play a role in whether or not protections are extended to LGBT individuals. This article also examines Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the role of the EEOC in enforcing federal laws prohibiting discrimination, as well as executive orders and protections.

The Discrimination Presumption, Joseph Seiner

Faculty Publications

Employment discrimination is a fact in our society. Scientific studies continue to show that employer misconduct in the workplace is pervasive. This social science research is further supported by governmental data and litigation statistics. Even in the face of this evidence, however, it has never been more difficult to successfully bring a claim of employment discrimination. After the Supreme Court’s controversial decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), all civil litigants must sufficiently plead enough facts to give rise to a plausible claim. Empirical studies show that this …

An Intersectional Critique Of Tiers Of Scrutiny: Beyond “Either/Or” Approaches To Equal Protection, Devon W. Carbado, Kimberlé W. Crenshaw

Faculty Scholarship

For the past forty years, Justice Powell’s concurring opinion in University of California v. Bakke has been at the center of scholarly debates about affirmative action. Notwithstanding the enormous attention Justice Powell’s concurrence has received, scholars have paid little attention to a passage in that opinion that expressly takes up the issue of gender. Drawing on the theory of intersectionality, this Essay explains several ways in which its reasoning is flawed. The Essay also shows how interrogating Justice Powell’s “single axis” race and gender analysis raises broader questions about tiers of scrutiny for Black women. Through a hypothetical of a …

How The First Forty Years Of Circuit Precedent Got Title Vii's Sex Discrimination Provision Wrong, Jessica A. Clarke

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court will soon decide whether, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is discrimination “because of sex” to fire an employee because of their sexual orientation or transgender identity. There’s a simple textual argument that it is: An employer cannot take action on the basis of an employee’s sexual orientation or transgender identity without considering the employee’s sex. But while this argument is simple, it was not one that federal courts adopted until recently. This has caused some judges to object that the simple argument must be inconsistent with the original meaning of Title …

Mixed Signals: What Can We Expect From The Supreme Court In This Post-Ada Amendments Act Era?, Nicole Buonocore Porter

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.