Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons^™

Other Civil Rights Decisions In The October 2005 Term: Title Vii, Idea, And Section 1981, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The "Moral Hazards" Of Title Vii's Religious Accomodation Doctrine, Stephen Gee

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Freedom of religion in the workplace has recently become a hot topic with regards to whether U.S. or state laws (mainly contraceptive care and treatment of same-sex, married employees’ spouses) must accommodate certain employer’s religious beliefs or else violate the employer’s constitutional right. However, before this recent employer-centric topic came to light, the main focus was on employees and to what extent employers must accommodate an employee’s religion via Title VII. Most, if not all, academic literature has argued an employer’s duty to accommodate employee’s religion is too weak under Title VII and should thus be increased to the significant …

Title Vii At Fifty Years: A Symposium, Ann C. Mcginley

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Hiding The Statute In Plain View: University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center V. Nassar, Michael J. Zimmer

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Lessons From The Dolphins/Richie Incognito Saga, Kerri Lynn Stone

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Misconstruing Notice In Eeoc Administrative Processing & Conciliation, Angela D. Morrison, Angela D. Morrison

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Title Vii And Diversity, Kingsley R. Browne

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Trouble With Torgerson: The Latest Effort To Summarily Adjudicate Employment Discrimination Cases, Theresa M. Beiner

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

How The Nlrb's Light Still Shines On Anti-Discrimination Law Fifty Years After Title Vii, Michael Z. Green

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Defying "Common Sense?": The Legitimacy Of Applying Title Vii To Employer Criminal Records Policies, Tammy R. Pettinato

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights And Related Decisions, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What's So Reasonable About Reasonableness? Rejecting A Case Law-Centered Approach To Title Vii's Reasonable Belief Doctrine, Matthew W. Green Jr.

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The article critiques recent application of the reasonable belief doctrine under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision, in pertinent part, provides that “it shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees … because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice [under Title VII].” Literally read, the provision requires that an employee oppose a practice Title VII actually makes unlawful. If the employee does so and is retaliated against, the statute affords the employee relief. While the U.S. courts of appeals have …

Weathering Wal-Mart, Joseph A. Seiner

Notre Dame Law Review

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2531 (2011), the Supreme Court held that a proposed class of over a million women that had alleged pay and promotion discrimination against the nation’s largest retailer could not be certified. According to the Court, the plaintiffs had failed to establish a common thread in the case sufficient to tie their claims together. The academic response to Wal-Mart was immediate and harsh: the decision will serve as the death knell for mass employment litigation, undermining the workplace protections provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). …

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 …

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 …

Irresistible As A Matter Of Law: Why Title Vii Jurisprudence Administered The Coup De Grace To The Purposivist Method Of Statutory Interpretation, Robert A. Pellow

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Seventh Circuit Got It Wrong: Supervisors Should Not Face Individual Liability Under Section 1981, Emily Aleisa

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In Smith v. Bray, the Seventh Circuit, on a case of first impression, determined that supervisors with retaliatory motives can and should be individually liable under section 1981 when they cause the employer to retaliate against an employee. This article argues against the Seventh Circuit’s holding for four reasons. First, courts are required to analyze section 1981 the same way they analyze Title VII, and Title VII does not allow for individual supervisor liability. Second, the Seventh Circuit justified its decision based on a flawed comparison between section 1981 and section 1983, a similar but distinct civil rights statute. Third, …

Employment Discrimination Against Ex-Offenders: The Promise And Limits Of Title Vii Disparate Impact Theory, Tammy R. Pettinato

Marquette Law Review

none

Contesting A Contestation Of Testing: A Reply To Richard Delgado, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

This article was written as part of an ongoing dialog about the author’s previous article, Does Testing = Race Discrimination?: Ricci, The Bar Exam, the LSAT, and the Challenge to Learning, which defended the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, as well as defending testing more generally against charges of irrelevance, racial obtuseness, and most seriously, race discrimination.

This article specifically responds to Richard Delgado’s article, Standardized Testing as Discrimination: A Reply to Dan Subotnik.

Delimiting Title Vii: Reverse Religious Discrimination And Proxy Claims In Employment Discrimination Litigation, Andrea J. Sinclair

Vanderbilt Law Review

In July 2012, Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Dan Cathy remarked to a religious publication that he and his company supported the "biblical definition of the family unit."' Chick- fil-A is popularly known as a Christian company that promotes conservative, biblical values. Mr. Cathy's statement was largely interpreted by the media as an "anti-gay" sentiment rooted in religious beliefs. In response to Mr. Cathy's remark, government officials from Boston and Chicago refused to allow the restaurant chain to open new locations in their cities, citing the organization's official policy of "discrimination." The Chick-fil-A controversy demonstrates how the intersection of …

Race Indeed Above All: A Reply To Professors Andrea Curcio, Carol Chomsky, And Eileen Kaufman, Dan Subotnik

Scholarly Works

This article was written as part of an ongoing dialog about the author’s previous article, Does Testing = Race Discrimination?: Ricci, The Bar Exam, the LSAT, and the Challenge to Learning, which defended the Supreme Court’s decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, as well as defending testing more generally against charges of irrelevance, racial obtuseness, and most seriously, race discrimination.

This article specifically responds to Andrea A. Curcio, Carol L. Chomsky, and Eileen Kaufman’s article, Testing, Diversity, and Merit: A Reply to Dan Subotnik and Others.

A Reasonable Belief: In Support Of Lgbt Plaintiffs' Title Vii Retaliation Claims, Erin E. Buzuvis

Faculty Scholarship

When an LGBT employee is punished for complaining about discrimination in the workplace, he or she has two potential causes of action under Title VII: first, a challenge to the underlying discrimination, and second, a challenge to the resulting retaliation. The first claim is vulnerable to dismissal under courts’ narrow interpretation of Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination “because of sex” as applied to LGBT plaintiffs. But such an outcome need not determine the fate of the second claim. Faithful application of retaliation law’s “reasonable belief” standard, which protects a plaintiff from reprisal so long as she reasonably believed that she …

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 – …

Leveraging Antidiscrimination, Olatunde C.A. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

As the Civil Rights Act of 1964 turns fifty, antidiscrimination law has become unfashionable. Civil rights strategies are posited as not up to the serious task of addressing contemporary problems of inequality such as improving mobility for low-wage workers or providing access into entry-level employment. This Article argues that there is a danger in casting aside the Civil Rights Act as one charts new courses to address inequality. This Article revisits the implementation strategies that emerged in the first decade of the Act to reveal that the Act was not limited to addressing formal discrimination or bias, but rather drew …

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, …

Formalism And Employer Liability Under Title Vii, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

Most lawyers, law professors, and judges are familiar with two standard critiques of formalism in legal reasoning. One is the unacknowledged-policymaking critique. This critique argues that formalist reasoning purports to be above judicial policymaking but instead simply hides the policy decisions offstage. The other is the false-determinacy critique. This critique observes that formalist reasoning purports to reduce decision costs in the run of cases by sorting cases into defined categories, but argues that instead of going away the difficult questions of application migrate to the choice of the category in which to place a particular case.

Categorically Black, White, Or Wrong: 'Misperception Discrimination' And The State Of Title Vii Protection, D. Wendy Greene

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Article exposes an inconspicuous, categorically wrong movement within antidiscrimination law. A band of federal courts have denied Title VII protection to individuals who allege “categorical discrimination”: invidious, differential treatment on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, or sex. Per these courts, a plaintiff who self-identifies as Christian but is misperceived as Muslim cannot assert an actionable claim under Title VII if she suffers an adverse employment action as a result of this misperception and related animus. Though Title VII expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, courts have held that such a plaintiff’s claim of “misperception …

The "Nixon Sabotage": The Political Origins Of The Equal Protection Challenge To The Voting Rights Act, Danieli Evans

Articles

Critics of the Voting Rights Act argue that the anti-discrimination law requires states to engage in unconstitutional discrimination, as state decisionmakers must be conscious of race in order to ensure that voting policies do not weaken minority representation. This argument relies on the idea that subjective racial motivation is the essence of unconstitutional discrimination (even if benevolent, or to promote racial inclusion). The conventional understanding among constitutional scholars is that this “search for the bigoted decisionmaker” developed in employment and housing discrimination decisions between 1976 and 1979. Previous accounts have not recognized the role that the 1971 school desegregation decision …

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 …