Library Search
-
Lex Mentis - Civil Rights for the Aesthetically-Challenged ( May 2006 )
Most of us are shameless "lookists." We have a natural preference for good-looking people over ugly ones, whether in the context of hiring employees, selecting a mate, or watching movies or television. To date, most employers have largely been free to discriminate against the homely. A few nations, such as France, have outlawed discrimination based on physical appearance. In the U.S., only a few jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia and Santa Cruz, California, have enacted legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment based on physical appearance. -
The Long Reach of the Cat's Paw ( July 2004 )
Fired employees can sue for wrongful discrimination even if their employer's actual decision makers were neutral and without discriminatory intent. This may happen when decision makers rely on misinformation submitted by a supervisor or high-level manager with an illegal discriminatory bias or motive to get rid of the employee. -
Plaintiffs find a Litigation Oasis in the Desert: Court Makes it Easier for Employees to Prove Discrimination ( September 2003 )
When investigating whether someone has been discriminated against, do not underestimate clues that may suggest discrimination, even if those clues do not tie directly to the personnel action at issue. -
Supreme Court Rules On Evidentiary Matters Involving Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Cases ( January 2003 )
Employers generally realize that trying a 'mixed-motive"discrimination lawsuit in front of a jury may be risky; it is expensive, the stakes may be high and the outcome uncertain. The U. S. Supreme Court's recent ruling may change this dynamic in mixed-motive cases as more cases may survive summary judgment and reach a jury based on circumstantial evidence of discriminatory motive -
Race Discrimination: Recent Cases About Shifting Burdens of Proof ( March 2001 )
Two recent decisions from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over cases from Utah), Martinez v. State of Wyoming and Griffis v. City of Norman, Oklahoma, discuss the evidentiary showing that a victim of alleged racial discrimination in hiring and/or promotion must make in order to survive a defendant employer's motion for summary judgment. -
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.--What Impact Will It Have? Maybe None ( October 2000 )
This article discusses the impact of Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. upon the burden shifting analysis in employment discrimination cases. -
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Needed To Sustain Jury Verdicts in Employment Discrimination Cases ( July 2000 )
In Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc (June 12, 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opini. -
Recent Developments in Lending Discrimination Law ( February 2000 )
This article reviews both federal and state lending discrimination statutes as well as what constitutes direct and indirect evidence of discrimination. Moreover, this article examines Crawford v. Signet, a recent decision by the D.C. Circuit, whereby the court raised the plaintiff's burden of proof in lending discrimination actions. -
Proof of Discriminatory Motive in Title VII Case ( November 1998 )
Godwin v. Hunt-Wesson, No. 96-56830, 1998 WL 461918 (9th Cir., August 11, 1998). Acknowledging. -
Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof in Discrimination Cases ( June 1998 )
One year ago we reported on the Supreme Court's decision in Lytle v Malady. Plaintiff in this case had asserted, ba.