Lex Mentis - Civil Rights for the Aesthetically-Challenged
James J. McDonald of Fisher & Phillips LLP
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.
National Origin Discrimination--42. U.S.C. ?2000e.
William F. Frey of Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP
Plaintiff filed suit against her former employer alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 196.
Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Burden of Proof in Discrimination Cases
Bodman LLP
One year ago we reported on the Supreme Court's decision in Lytle v Malady. Plaintiff in this case had asserted, ba.
Plaintiffs find a Litigation Oasis in the Desert: Court Makes it Easier for Employees to Prove Discrimination
Eric J. Hansum of Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP
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.
The Long Reach of the Cat's Paw
Douglas B. M. Ehlke of Ehlke Law Offices
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.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.--What Impact Will It Have? Maybe None
Tracey R. Wallace of Adorno Yoss White & Wiggins
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
Bodman LLP
In Reeves v Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc (June 12, 2000), the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous opini.
Proof of Discriminatory Motive in Title VII Case
Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP
Godwin v. Hunt-Wesson, No. 96-56830, 1998 WL 461918 (9th Cir., August 11, 1998). Acknowledging.
Supreme Court Rules On Evidentiary Matters Involving Mixed-Motive Employment Discrimination Cases
Elizabeth Sarah Gere and Stephen B. Stern of Troutman Sanders LLP
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
Recent Developments in Lending Discrimination Law
Gary C. Tepper and Samuel K. Charnoff of Arent Fox LLP
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.
Race Discrimination: Recent Cases About Shifting Burdens of Proof
Parsons Behle & Latimer
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.