Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons^™

Trojan Zebra: Unmasking Bostock’S Potential To Undermine Lgbtq+ Protections, James E.A. Rehwaldt

Lewis & Clark Law Review

Engaging with the methodological framework endorsed by the Supreme Court’s holding and rejected by the dissents in Bostock v. Clayton County, this Comment critically examines both the limited scope and potential misuses of the Court’s decision recognizing protection against employment discrimination for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Cause For Concern Or Cause For Celebration?: Did Bostock V. Clayton County Establish A New Mixed Motive Theory For Title Vii Cases And Make It Easier For Plaintiffs To Prove Discrimination Claims?, Terrence Cain

Law Faculty Scholarship

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 that …

Race-Based Hostile Work Environment Claims In Federal And Minnesota Courts: A Historical Perspective On The Development Of The "Severe Or Pervasive" Standard, Frances Baillon, Michelle Gibbons

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

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 …

Bostock Was Bogus: Textualism, Pluralism, And Title Vii, Mitchell N. Berman, Guha Krishnamurthi

Notre Dame Law Review

In Bostock v. Clayton County, one of the blockbuster cases from its 2019 Term, the Supreme Court held that federal antidiscrimination law prohibits employment discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Unsurprisingly, the result won wide acclaim in the mainstream legal and popular media. Results aside, however, the reaction to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion, which purported to ground the outcome in a textualist approach to statutory interpretation, was more mixed. The great majority of commentators, both liberal and conservative, praised Justice Gorsuch for what they deemed a careful and sophisticated—even “magnificent” and “exemplary”—application of textualist principles, …

Menstruation Discrimination And The Problem Of Shadow Precedents, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

A burgeoning menstrual justice movement calls attention to menstruation-related discrimination in workplaces, schools, prisons, and many other aspects of life. In recent years, a few courts have suggested such discrimination could violate Title VII, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in employment. Their analysis focuses on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), an amendment to Title VII passed to override a Supreme Court case that had held pregnancy discrimination was not sex discrimination.

This essay, written for a symposium at Columbia Law School, applies my earlier research on the statutory interpretation of Congressional overrides to highlight two potential challenges this …

Maternity Rights: A Comparative View Of Mexico And The United States, Roberto Rosas

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

Women play a large role in the workplace and require additional protection during pregnancy, childbirth, and while raising children. This article compares how Mexico and the United States have approached the issue of maternity rights and benefits. First, Mexico provides eighty-four days of paid leave to mothers, while the United States provides unpaid leave for up to twelve weeks. Second, Mexico allows two thirty-minute breaks a day for breastfeeding, while the United States allows a reasonable amount of time per day to breastfeed. Third, Mexico provides childcare to most federal employees, while the United States provides daycares to a small …

Caste Discrimination And Federal Employment Law In The United States, Brian Elzweig

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Indiana Federal Court Rejects Public School Teacher’S Religious Discrimination Claim Over Misgendering Discharge, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Unilateral Burdens And Third-Party Harms: Abortion Conscience Laws As Policy Outliers, Nadia Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Most conscience laws establish nearly absolute protections for health care providers unwilling to participate in abortion. Providers’ rights to refuse—and relatedly, their immunity from civil liability, employment discrimination, and other adverse consequences—are often unqualified, even in situations where patients are likely to be harmed. These laws impose unilateral burdens on third parties in an effort to protect the rights of conscientious refusers. As such, they are outliers in the universe of federal and state anti-discrimination and religious freedom statutes, all of which strike a more even balance between individual rights and the prevention of harm to third parties. This Article …

Undocumented Domestic Workers: A Penumbra In The Workforce, Abigail A. Roman

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

Abstract forthcoming.

Modernizing Discrimination Law: The Adoption Of An Intersectional Lens, Marisa K. Sanchez

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

Abstract forthcoming.

Employer Liability For Sex Harassment Through The Lens Of Restorative Justice, Emily Rees

Cleveland State Law Review

Title VII cases alleging sex harassment have become almost completely deferential to employers who have anti-harassment policies. In this Note, I discuss legal and sociological influences on this development and propose using restorative justice focused mediation to avoid rendering Title VII entirely ineffective. Mediation should only be compelled as a remedy—after a court finds that harassment occurred, but that the plaintiff cannot prove her employer knew about the harassment. Instead of dismissing these cases—where judges have already found illegal discrimination—some corrective action should be imposed on the employer for its failure to maintain a harassment-free workplace. Focusing mediation on principles …

How To Look Like A Lawyer, Ann Juliano

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Law schools often claim that they are teaching students “how to think like a lawyer.” What is less touted, however, is that students are learning how to look like a lawyer. They receive this message from multiple sources (faculty, alumni, peers, the career office) concerning a variety of situations: class, interviews, moot court, trial team, symposia and conferences. For law students who are first generation, these sources may be the only avenue (apart from the entertainment industry) of determining how to look like a lawyer. For law students who are transgender or gender non-binary, dress code advice dispensed along …

Model Dress Code: Promoting Genderless Attire Rules To Foster An Inclusive Legal Profession, Rebekah Hanley, Malcolm Macwilliamson

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

I knew that my likelihood of being able to wear a dress to court was pretty slim. I wasn’t that naïve. At the same time, I resented the notion that at no time in my future legal career would I be able to acknowledge, honor, or share the full complexity of my identity—that, by choosing law, I was relinquishing the right to ever be fully myself in my professional career.

I came out as transgender at age eighteen. Shortly thereafter, I began to transition socially and medically. I quickly realized how much of my “self” I had been unable …

Bostock’S Paradox: Intersections In Lgbtq Employment Rights And Private, Religious Businesses, Christopher Smith

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Thanks to the recent opinion of Bostock v. Clayton County by the United States Supreme Court regarding the protection of LGBTQ employees in the workplace, discussion has turned to how this protection relates to religious employers. Religious organizations such as churches and mosques are afforded protections thanks to an exemption found in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The role and scope of these protections in regards to private, religious (but not religion-owned) businesses has been debated as recently as 2014 in the Supreme Court. In this paper I address this issue and determine that, underneath current ruling …

The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same: Online Platforms And Consumer Equality, Anne-Marie Hakstian, Jerome D. Williams, Sam Taddeo

Pepperdine Law Review

Title II of the Civil Rights Act, along with its counterpart state laws, have protected the rights of racial minorities in the United States for decades. Section 1981 has guaranteed contract rights for all people, regardless of race, since 1868. But times are changing. Racial discrimination claims against 21st century technology companies face challenges when brought under existing laws. Even the relatively current Communications Decency Act (CDA) is unhelpful to consumers attempting to seek redress from online platforms. In this article, we analyze the only cases of consumer discrimination brought against providers of the sharing economy and highlight some of …

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 …

Defining Antisemitism, Mark Goldfeder

Scholarly Works

Antisemitic harassment is illegal, but without a standard definition of what ‘antisemitism’ includes, that idea is almost meaningless. That is why state legislatures and university administrators across the country are debating enacting policies that adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. This Article will illustrate precisely how a state bill or a university policy utilizing the IHRA definition for assessing motivation when analyzing discriminatory conduct claims would actually function, so that critics can no longer vaguely claim that such policies would somehow offend the First Amendment. It will also explain the difference between protected political speech and …

Rbg And Gender Discrimination, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Necessary Coverage For Authentic Identity: How Bostock Made Title Vii The Strongest Protection Against Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Denial Of Gender-Affirming Medical Care., Jennifer A. Knackert

Marquette Law Review

In June 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII

protection from discrimination on the basis of sex extended to LGBTQ+

employees. The Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia decision dealt with three

separate cases where LGBTQ+ employees had been fired from their jobs based

on either their sexual orientation or gender identity. While the shared issue in

these cases had to do with employee termination, the textualist argument

presented by the Court leads many legal scholars to believe that the holding

would be applicable to other areas of employment discrimination covered by

Title VII such as employer-sponsored healthcare …

Queering Bostock, Jeremiah A. Ho

All Faculty Scholarship

Although the Supreme Court’s 2020 Title VII decision, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, is a victory for LGBTQ individuals, its doctrinal limitations unavoidably preserve a discriminatory status quo. This Article critically examines how and why Bostock fails to highlight the indignities experienced by queer minorities under decades of employment discrimination. In Bostock, Justice Gorsuch presents a sweeping textualist interpretation of Title VII that protects against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Yet, the decision sparsely recognizes queer lived experiences, compared to prior pro-LGBTQ cases where such recognition contributed to developing an anti-stereotyping framework that confronted some of the heteronormative biases …

Challenges In Bringing Gender Equity Into The Workplace: Addressing Common Concerns Women Have When Deciding To Hold Employers Accountable For Gender Discrimination, Siobhan Klassen

Journal of Race, Gender, and Ethnicity

No abstract provided.

Seeking Economic Justice In The Face Of Enduring Racism, Deseriee A. Kennedy

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Compared To What? Menstruation, Pregnancy, And The Complexities Of Comparison, Emily Gold Waldman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

When crafting a sex discrimination argument, finding the right comparison can be crucial. Indeed, comparison-drawing has been a key strategy for advocates challenging the constitutionality of the tampon tax. In their 2016 lawsuit challenging New York’s tampon tax, the plaintiffs alleged that the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance had imposed a “double standard” when deciding which products would be considered tax-free medical items and which would not. Similar arguments were made in the subsequent challenge to Florida's tampon tax. In both cases, the arguments had powerful rhetorical force, helping to effectuate legislative repeal of the tampon taxes …

Rbg And Gender Discrimination, Eileen Kaufman

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Wearing My Crown To Work: The Crown Act As A Solution To Shortcomings Of Title Vii For Hair Discrimination In The Workplace, Margaret Goodman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The “Ultimate” Question: Are Ultimate Employment Decisions Required To Succeed On A Discrimination Claim Under Section 703(A) Of Title Vii?, Yina Cabrera

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Proving Discrimination By The Text, Deborah Widiss

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Employment discrimination laws make the “simple but momentous” declaration that it is illegal to deny employment on the basis of race, sex, religion, or other key aspects of identity. But when employees who have been treated unfairly turn to the courts for relief, courts rarely assess whether their claims meet the statutory standard. Instead, they funnel the evidence through a convoluted body of judge-made law known as McDonnell Douglas burden shifting.

This Article lays bare fundamental inconsistencies between the statutes’ causal language, as definitively interpreted by the Supreme Court in recent cases, and the burden-shifting process. In Bostock v. Clayton …

Challenges For Black Workers After 2020: Antiracism In The Gig Economy?, Michael C. Duff

All Faculty Scholarship

Black workers’ fortunes in the coming decades are tied to the expansion of the Gig economy, the impact of which is to destroy employee status. Because much antiracism law and policy has been transmitted to society through the medium of employment law, the disappearance of employee status should be of concern to all foes of racism. This short essay argues that Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 should be expanded to cover all forms of racist workplace conduct. Regulatory arbitrage will continue to challenge the definition of employment for the foreseeable future. It is fitting that one …