Law Commons^™

Let's Talk About Gender: Nonbinary Title Vii Plaintiffs Post-Bostock, Meredith R. Severtson

Vanderbilt Law Review

In Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court held that Title VII’s sex-discrimination prohibition applies to discrimination against gay and transgender employees. This decision, surprising from a conservative Court, has engendered a huge amount of commentary on both its substantive holding and its interpretive method. This Note addresses a single question arising from this discourse: After Bostock, how will courts address allegations of sex discrimination by plaintiffs whose gender identities exist outside of traditional sex and gender binaries? As this Note explores, some have argued that Bostock’s textualist logic precludes sex-discrimination claims by nonbinary plaintiffs. While such arguments fail to …

Ordered Into Oblivion: How Courts Have Rendered The Georgia Whistleblower Act Useless, And How To Fix It, Micah Barry

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Pursuing Diversity: From Education To Employment, Amy L. Wax

All Faculty Scholarship

A central pillar of the Supreme Court’s educational affirmative-action jurisprudence is that the pedagogical benefits of being educated with students from diverse backgrounds are sufficiently “compelling” to justify some degree of race-conscious selection in university admissions.

This essay argues that the blanket permission to advance educational diversity, defensible or not, should not be extended to employment. The purpose of the workplace is not pedagogical. Rather, employees are hired and paid to do a job, deliver a service, produce a product, and complete specified tasks efficiently and effectively. Whether race-conscious practices for the purpose of creating a more diverse workforce will …

Zarda And Sexual Orientation Expression: A New High For Title Vii Interpretation, Nico Ramos

Catholic University Law Review

Under current federal law, a majority of jurisdictions decline to extend Title VII protections based on sexual orientation; however, a growing number of circuits have reversed precedent and held that Title VII prohibits discrimination sexual orientation discrimination. The Second Circuit’s en banc decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express reached the conclusion that sexual orientation discrimination is as a cognizable claim under Title VII because in order to discriminate against a person sexual orientation, you naturally first have to take their gender into account. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and has now heard oral arguments.

Part I of this note provides …

A Textuary Ray Of Hope For Lgbtq+ Workers: Does Title Vii Mean What It Says?, Eduardo Juarez

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

Abstract forthcoming.

Stop Punishing Our Kids: How Title Vii Can Protect Children Of Color In Public School’S Discipline Practices, Lizette Rodriguez

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

Section I of this comment considers the evolution of education in the United States and how American society dealt with racial discrimination in public schools in the past, and how those facts and decisions differ from the issues that students of color are facing today. Section II explains the Equal Protection Clause (EPC) and analyzes the seminal cases that demonstrate the power of the EPC and when it is appropriate to use it. Section III introduces Title VII and walks through violations of disparate impact discrimination and disparate treatment discrimination. Section IV explains what the Department of Education’s Civil Rights …

Contracting Free From Racial Animus: Comcast Corporation V. National Association Of African American-Owned Media And Entertainment Studios, Catherine Tarantino

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The United States has come a long way in promoting racial equality since the 1866 and 1964 Civil Rights Acts, but racial animus still plays an impermissible role in many contracting and employment decisions. Comcast Corporation v. National Association of African American-Owned Media and Entertainment Studios offers the Supreme Court the opportunity to decide which causal standard applies to claims alleging racial bias in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Specifically, the Court will decide whether § 1981 requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that racial animus was the but-for cause or simply a motivating-factor in the defendant’s refusal to contract. …

Questioning The Definition Of "Sex" In Title Vii: Bostock V. Clayton County, Ga., Katherine Carter

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In October of 2019, the Supreme Court heard the arguments of two cases presenting the same inquiry: whether Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination encompasses discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Currently, twenty-one states as well as the District of Columbia expressly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by statute or regulation. Other states offer protection in the form of agency interpretation or court ruling. However, for the remaining states with no established protections, Title VII stands as the only potential safeguard against sexual orientation discrimination.

The following Commentary considers the case of Gerald Bostock, a gay man from …

Lgbt Discrimination As Religious Discrimination: Ruse Or Resolution?, Craig Westergard

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Title Vii And The Unenvisaged Case: Is Anti-Lgbtq Discrimination Unlawful Sex Discrimination, Ronald Turner

Indiana Law Journal

As discussed herein, courts and individual judges recognizing or not finding actionable Title VII anti-LGBTQ14 claims have offered different rationales in support of their conflicting positions, including three justifications discussed in this project: (1) the meaning of Title VII’s “because of sex” prohibition, (2) the Supreme Court’s and circuit courts’ construction of the “because of sex” provision in the context of sex stereotyping and gender nonconformity discrimination as applied to the anti- LGBTQ question, and (3) associational discrimination theory. Claim-recognizing jurists have looked to Title VII’s text, Supreme Court and circuit court precedent, and the views of the Equal Employment …

Breaking The Binary: Desegregation Of Bathrooms, Timothy J. Graves

Georgia State University Law Review

This note discusses how the binary view of gender in relation to public bathroom segregation is insufficient to meet the diverse needs of the public and proposes the desegregation of bathrooms as the solution to promote gender equality and reduce gender-based social imbalances. This note will focus on the bathroom rights of individuals who identify outside of the binary options of male and female, viewed through the lens of how transgender people identifying within the binary have been treated by the courts. For the purposes of this note, the term non-binary will be used to refer to these individuals. Part …

Disparate Impact Under The Adea: Applicants Need Not Apply, L. Whitney Woodward

Georgia State University Law Review

Part I of this Note addresses the current debate on this topic, illustrated through case law in the Eleventh Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, and a recent federal district court ruling in the Ninth Circuit. Part II analyzes the unambiguous, textual differences between the various subsections of the ADEA as well as the textual differences between Title VII and the ADEA. This Note explores these textual arguments through an analysis of the statutes and interpretative case law and concludes that, as drafted, the disparate impact theory of age discrimination should not be available to non- employee job applicants. Part III illustrates …

The Politics Of Pregnancy Accommodation, Stephanie Bornstein

UF Law Faculty Publications

How can antidiscrimination law treat men and women “equally” when it comes to the issue of pregnancy? The development of U.S. law on pregnancy accommodation in the workplace tells a story of both legal disagreements about the meaning of “equality” and political disagreements about how best to achieve “equality” at work for women. Federal law has prohibited sex discrimination in the workplace for over five decades. Yet, due to long held gender stereotypes separating work and motherhood, the idea that prohibiting sex discrimination requires a duty to accommodate pregnant workers is a relatively recent phenomenon—and still only partially required by …

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: 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.

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.

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 …

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.

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.

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 …