Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Products: The Emperor Has No Clothes - Pretext Plus Is Alive And Kicking., Matthew R. Scott, Russell D. Chapman
Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Products: The Emperor Has No Clothes - Pretext Plus Is Alive And Kicking., Matthew R. Scott, Russell D. Chapman
St. Mary's Law Journal
Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., the Fifth Circuit’s en banc decision in Rhodes v. Guiberson Oil Tools established the proper standard of causation in employment discrimination cases. The plaintiff must prove his or her protected trait was the “determinative reason” for the challenged employment action. Following Reeves, which appeared to overrule Rhodes and the doctrine of pretext plus, the Fifth Circuit struggled with the causation question. Despite the apparent confusion, the Fifth Circuit has largely reaffirmed not only its commitment to the Rhodes pretext-plus analysis, but also the determinative-reason standard for pretext cases. …
Making Sense Of Pretext: An Analysis Of Evidentiary Requirements For Summary Judgment Litigants In The Fifth Circuit In Light Of Reeves V. Sanderson Plumbing Prodcuts, And A Proposal For Clarification., Eric S. Riester
St. Mary's Law Journal
Although the United States Supreme Court in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. attempted to clarify the summary judgment landscape of Title VII employment discrimination cases, lower courts in the Fifth Circuit are still without guidance. Under Reeves, direct proof of discrimination is not required to defeat a motion for summary judgment as long as the circumstantial evidence allows a reasonable inference of discrimination. The required strength of the circumstantial evidence, however, remains a major issue in the Fifth Circuit. Since Reeves, the Fifth Circuit has not stated a uniform summary judgment standard, nor has it answered how much circumstantial …
42 U.S.C. 1981 Does Not Provide A Remedy For Racial Harassment During Employment., Jeffrey A. Lacy
42 U.S.C. 1981 Does Not Provide A Remedy For Racial Harassment During Employment., Jeffrey A. Lacy
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the United States Supreme Court held 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide a remedy for racial harassment during employment. In 1976, in Runyon v. McCrary, the Court expanded the scope of § 1981 to cover private discrimination in contractual settings, including racial discrimination in private schools, when previously unavailable. More than a decade after the Runyon decision, the Supreme Court in Patterson, established that there were limits to § 1981’s applicability in private racial discrimination claims. Specifically, the Court held while § 1981 prohibits discriminatory conduct while entering into or enforcing a contract, …