Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Case And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain
Seattle University Law Review
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee “because of” race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. This seems simple enough, but if an employer makes an adverse employment decision partly for an impermissible reason and partly for a permissible reason, i.e., if the employer acts with a mixed motive, has the employer acted “because of” the impermissible reason? According to Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, the answer is no. The Courts in Gross and Nassar held …
The Gay Accent, Gender, And Title Vii Employment Discrimination, Ryan Castle
The Gay Accent, Gender, And Title Vii Employment Discrimination, Ryan Castle
Seattle University Law Review
While race, religion, ethnicity, and sex will always remain salient social issues in our nation, sexual orientation is currently at the forefront of our national debate and will likely not abate in the foreseeable future. Federal courts, for example, struggle in differentiating sex, gender, and sexuality when adjudicating Title VII employment discrimination claims. Because Title VII does not protect employees from sexual orientation-based discrimination, plaintiffs who are or are perceived to be of a sexual minority have difficulty proving a valid sex-based discrimination claim in federal court. This difficulty arises because one cannot perceive sex, gender, and sexuality without muddling …
Fait Accompli?: Where The Supreme Court And Equal Pay Meet A Narrow Legislative Override Under The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Megan Coluccio
Fait Accompli?: Where The Supreme Court And Equal Pay Meet A Narrow Legislative Override Under The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Megan Coluccio
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment argues the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act’s consequences will be minimally felt, so long as the Act is narrowly construed. The Comment suggests congressional action was appropriate after the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision and discusses the political and legislative debate leading to the Act. In addition, the Comment analyzes the Act in application, exploring its meaning, implications, and function. The Comment argues that the concerns and consequences arising from the enactment of the Act can be alleviated and avoided by a narrow interpretation of its amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Finally, the Comment recommends …
Lack Of Meaningful Choice Defined: Your Job Vs. Your Right To Sue In A Judicial Forum, Sara Lingafelter
Lack Of Meaningful Choice Defined: Your Job Vs. Your Right To Sue In A Judicial Forum, Sara Lingafelter
Seattle University Law Review
Mandatory arbitration agreements subvert an employee's constitutional right to a judicial forum and generally place unfair burdens on plaintiffs. An employee faced with the option of either signing a mandatory arbitration agreement or losing a job often has no meaningful choice. The Supreme Court, however, has failed to recognize first that Congress did not intend for mandatory arbitration to extend to Title VII claims and second, that employers often leave employees with no meaningful choice regarding mandatory arbitration. Nonetheless, state and federal judges are increasingly recognizing that arbitration agreements may be the product of procedural unconscionability. Accordingly, when employees are …
Garcia V. Spun Steak Co.: The Ninth Circuit Requires That Title Vii Plaintiffs Prove The Adverse Effect Of A Challenged English-Only Workplace Rule, Dan Clawson
Seattle University Law Review
Although the Spun Steak decision recognizes that English-only rules may impact Title VII in some circumstances, the court held that an employer's good-faith imposition of these rules on fully bilingual employees does not violate Title VII. Section II of this Comment presents an overview of the substantive law and the enforcement mechanisms of Title VII. Section III outlines the development of federal discrimination law regarding English-only rules. Section IV examines the Spun Steak decision, and Section V analyzes the implications of this decision and its effect on discrimination law in the Ninth Circuit.
An Observation About Comparable Worth, George Schatzki
An Observation About Comparable Worth, George Schatzki
Seattle University Law Review
The ultimate legal question is: Does Title VII incorporate the comparable worth doctrine? The courts are saying, "No." Their reasoning is, at best, unpersuasive. Indeed, often their reasoning is nothing more than mere conclusion. Given what I have described briefly as the legal arguments pro and con, one can easily understand that so long as Griggs remains a part of the Title VII scene, there is a rational but not compelling argument to incorporate comparable worth into the Act. How, then, does a court decide? The following discussion is offered not as an example of desirable or undesirable judicial analysis. …
Sex Stereotyping And Statistics—Equality In An Insurance Context, Cheryl Bleakney
Sex Stereotyping And Statistics—Equality In An Insurance Context, Cheryl Bleakney
Seattle University Law Review
This Comment first outlines a few basic insurance concepts and distinguishes employer-provided plans from individually purchased policies. It then examines discrimination criteria and City of Los Angeles, Department of Water and Power v. Manhart's application of Title VII and applies those principles to Supreme Court cases. The Comment also suggests that FIPA be revised to extend its gender-neutral requirements only to employer provided group plans.