Labor and Employment Law Commons^™

Sexual Harassment And Labor Arbitration, Susan A. Fitzgibbon

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Employment Discrimination In The United States In 1989: Revisions Or A Pause, Josef Rohlik

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Citizenship, Aliengage, And Ethnic Origin Discrimination In Employment Under The Law Of The United States, Mack A. Player

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court’S Heightened Retaliation Standard In Nassar: A Prudent Limitation Or A Misguided Restriction To Title Vii Claims?, Darren Stakey

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Seventh Circuit Allows American Subsidiary To Avoid Title Vii Liability By Asserting Fcn Treaty Rights Of Japanese Parent - American Employees Treated As Second Class Citizens - Court Cites Reciprocal Benefits For American Firms Operating Abroad - Fortino V. Quasar Co., 950 F.2d 389 (7th Cir. 1991)., Steven J. Lewengrub

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

The Use And Misuse Of Econometric Evidence In Employment Discrimination Cases, Joni Hersch, Blair Druhan Bullock

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Experts routinely criticize three aspects of regression analyses presented by the opposing party in employment discrimination cases: omitted explanatory variables, sample size, and statistical significance. However, these factors affect the reliability of the regression results only in very limited circumstances. As a result, valid regression analyses do not provide the critical guidance that they should in employment discrimination cases. Our own statistical analyses of seventy-eight Title VII employment discrimination cases find that merely raising these critiques, even if spurious, reduces plaintiffs’ likelihood of prevailing at trial. We propose that courts adopt a peer-review system in which court-appointed economists, compensated by …

A Comparative Analysis Of Unconscious And Institutional Discrimination In The United States And Britain, Leland Ware

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Federalism And Business Decisions In The October 2005 Term, Carter G. Phillips

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

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.

University Of Texas Southwestern Medical Center V. Nassar: Undermining The National Policy Against Discrimination, Matthew A. Krimski

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Civil Rights And Related Decisions, Eileen Kaufman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Ledbetter V. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Derrick A. Bell Jr.

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 …

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

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 …