Federal Law of Employment Discrimination in a Nutshell
Authors:
Player, Mack A. / Sperino, Sandra F.
Edition:
9th
Copyright Date:
2021
28 chapters
have results for Federal Law of Employment Discrimination
Chapter 1. Introduction to Federal Discrimination law 40 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a precursor to the ADA. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination in federal agency programs, in programs that receive federal financial assistance, in federal employment, and in the employment practices of certain federal contractors. Although the Rehabilitation Act still applies to those entities, Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to expand disability discrimination protections into additional areas, including employment discrimination by private employers.
- Outside of the federal employer context, the federal discrimination statutes do not preempt state or local laws that provide employees with more protection than federal law. The federal discrimination statutes do not preempt application of state law that is consistent with or expands upon rights granted by the federal statutes. State law may not, however, substantively or procedurally frustrate rights granted by Title VII.
- There are four statutes that form the core of federal employment discrimination law: (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), ; (2) the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), ; (3) Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”),
- During the congressional debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, amendments were proposed which would have included “age” as a protected class, thus protecting age distinctions on a basis virtually identical to race, color, religion, sex, and national origin classifications. Although Congress rejected those proposals, it directed the Secretary of Labor to study the problem of age discrimination in employment and to recommend legislation. The Secretary’s report, The Older American Worker—Age Discrimination in Employment (1965), documented the problem of discrimination against older workers and was used by the Secretary in proposing the specific remedial legislation that ultimately became the ADEA.
- , the Court addressed a state statute that required employers to grant pregnant employees up to four months of unpaid pregnancy leave. The employer challenged the California act on the grounds that when male employees were not accorded similar leaves for physical conditions, this would violate Title VII’s proscriptions against sex discrimination. Since state law required a violation of Title VII, the employer argued, state law must be preempted. The Court rejected this argument and upheld the state statute. The Court reasoned first that Title VII’s protection of pregnancy through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, while perhaps not requiring an employer to grant such pregnancy leave, did not preclude state law from granting more protection than required by Title VII. The Court then recognized that the Pregnancy Discrimination Act may indeed permit the granting of benefits to pregnant women that are not accorded to men. Thus, an employer may not be required to grant a similar amount
- Open Chapter
Chapter 12. Disparate Impact 150 results (showing 5 best matches)
- If federal law prohibits an employer from hiring or retaining individuals with certain convictions, an employer complying with such a federal law would have a defense to liability under the discrimination statutes. The federal discrimination statutes preempt state law to the extent that the state law requires an employer to do something that is inconsistent with federal discrimination law. Title VII has a national security exemption that allows an employer to exclude an individual from employment if a job requires a security clearance and the employee or applicant fails to qualify for one.
- A uniform rule or practice utilized with no motive to benefit or harm members of protected classes can violate federal discrimination law. A neutral rule that results in individuals being treated differently is an act of “discrimination.” It is “discrimination” “because of” if the rule has an adverse impact on members of a protected class and cannot be justified.
- The Act proscribes not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair in form but discriminatory in operation. The touchstone is business necessity. If an employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to be related to job performance the practice is prohibited. . . . Good intent or the absence of discriminatory intent, does not redeem employment procedures or testing mechanisms that operate as “built-in headwinds” for minority groups and are unrelated to measuring job capability. . . . Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply motivation.
- Disparate impact is a type of discrimination that courts often define in contrast to disparate treatment. In a disparate treatment case, the plaintiff is usually trying to prove that a worker’s protected trait motivated a negative outcome. Although the federal discrimination statutes do not use the words motive or intent in their main language, courts tend to characterize disparate treatment claims as focused on these concepts. Thus, if a supervisor tells a woman that he is not going to promote her because he does not think women are management material, this would be an example of disparate treatment.
- The plaintiffs all alleged injury under the same federal statute. They all alleged sex discrimination for pay and promotion on the same theories. Despite these similarities, the majority held that plaintiffs did not establish commonality. The Court noted: “That common contention, moreover, must be of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution—which means that determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke.”
- Open Chapter
Preface and Acknowledgments 9 results (showing 5 best matches)
- This book explores the four primary federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in employment: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1981.
- Learning employment discrimination law requires learning a new field-specific vocabulary that judges and practitioners use to navigate the complex doctrine. At the outset it is worth noting that very little of this vocabulary is contained in the statutes themselves. Additionally, many of the frameworks do not derive directly from or derive only loosely from the statutory language. This is, in part, due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s earliest attempts at interpreting these statutes pre-dated the rise of textualist statutory interpretation methods that happened in the late 1980s.
- This is an increasingly complex area of law. Courts have created different ways of evaluating discrimination, depending on what kinds of facts a case presents. The courts have given different labels or names to certain factual scenarios. Judges have then created frameworks to analyze these cases.
- On prior editions of this Nutshell, Mack’s full, often unnamed, partner in this and other works was his spouse Jeanne M.L. Player, now retired from years as an employment law litigator, and more recently as an EEOC administrative judge. Jeanne contributed ideas and text, provided corrective direction, served as a sounding board, and was an editor for words, style, and content.
- This Nutshell addresses topics such as race and sex discrimination that are heavily contested and that have evolving language norms. It is often difficult to consistently identify groups as they themselves prefer, particularly when the statutes or the courts use dated or different terms. The text aims to be reasonably descriptive while avoiding unnecessary offense.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 15. Affirmative Action 107 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Stronger forms of affirmative action may implicate federal discrimination law and the Constitution when race, sex, or other protected traits are explicitly used to determine workplace outcomes. However, the Supreme Court has allowed space for limited affirmative action under a narrow set of circumstances. The contours of allowable affirmative action are changing. Additionally, there is some uncertainty about the exact contours of affirmative action in the employment discrimination context because recent Supreme Court cases on affirmative action focus on the education context. It is unclear how these cases apply in the employment context.
- Outside of the remedies context, the federal Constitution also impacts affirmative action plans implemented by state or federal actors, such as public employers. As discussed throughout this chapter, many of the cases addressing affirmative action taken by public actors are in the education context, and it is unclear how these cases translate into the employment context. This section begins by discussing the employment-related cases and then discusses affirmative action cases outside the employment context.
- The Court reasoned that Title VII must be read against the background of its legislative history and the historical context from which the act arose. The Court noted that Congress’ primary concern while enacting Title VII, was race discrimination in employment. The purpose of Title VII was to eliminate the last vestiges of racial discrimination in employment. Further, based on the House Report accompanying the Civil Rights Act, the Court stated that it appeared clear that Congress did not intend wholly to prohibit private and voluntary affirmative action efforts as one way of solving racial injustice.
- The Supreme Court also noted that in evaluating the compliance of an affirmative action plan with Title VII’s discrimination prohibitions, courts should be mindful of the Supreme Court’s and Congress’ consistent emphasis on the value of voluntary efforts to further the objectives of the law.
- With these principles in mind, the Supreme Court held that, while some of its opinions since might suggest that remedying past discrimination is the only permissible justification for race-based governmental discrimination, the law school has a compelling interest in attaining a diverse student body. Further, the Court held that it would defer to the school’s educational judgment regarding the essentiality of such diversity.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 5. Protected Classes 89 results (showing 5 best matches)
- With a few exceptions, the ADEA prohibits age discrimination against individuals aged 40 and older. . If an individual under the age of 40 is discriminated against because of her age, there is no federal age discrimination claim. However, some state laws protect younger individuals from employment discrimination because of age.
- Defining concepts such as sex and race is complex and this chapter does not purport to engage in an exhaustive discussion of these topics. Instead, it highlights the major issues that students and practitioners will likely encounter in employment discrimination cases. This chapter explores how the statutes and courts define the traits protected under federal employment discrimination law. The definition of “disability” is separately covered in Chapter 14.
- Title VII prohibits employment discrimination because of race, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), religion, and national origin. It requires employers to minimally accommodate religious beliefs and practices. It also requires employers to accommodate pregnancy in some circumstances. Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) prohibits discrimination because of age for individuals who are 40 or over. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit disability discrimination. Disability discrimination is covered in detail in Chapter 14. All of the statutes also prohibit retaliation. Discrimination because of other factors will not violate these federal discrimination statutes.
- The denial of an employment opportunity because of the individual’s refusal to have a sexual or dating relationship with a supervisor is discrimination because of sex. Likewise, demanding and receiving sexual favors in exchange for promotions or other tangible employment actions is illegal sex discrimination.
- When a female employee is promoted over a male employee because she is having a sexual affair with the supervisor, this should constitute sex discrimination against the rejected male employee. If a female employee is promoted simply because she is an attractive female, a rejected male employee still should be able to claim sex discrimination. However, most courts have held that there is no sex discrimination if a supervisor rewards his paramour by giving him or her employment opportunities to the detriment of other employees.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 2. People and Entities Bound by Federal Discrimination Law 57 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA do not universally protect against all discrimination that happens in the workplace. Instead, the statutes define the kinds of people and entities who are bound by the statutes and thus face consequences for failure to abide by the statutes. A threshold question in an employment discrimination case is whether the defendant is a person or entity that falls within the ambit of federal discrimination law.
- The federal statutes discussed in this book do not provide the only protection against employment discrimination. State and local laws may also prohibit discrimination.
- Section 1981 provides: “All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.” Although Section 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the employment context, it is not limited to just employment. Section 1981 does not contain a minimum-employee threshold, like Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA. Thus, very small employers face potential liability under Section 1981. Individual liability also exists under Section 1981.
- The ADA also excludes the United States or a corporation wholly owned by it from the definition of “employer.” . Unlike Title VII and the ADEA, the ADA does not later add back in coverage for federal employees and applicants for employment. Instead, the Rehabilitation Act is typically the statute that protects those individuals from disability discrimination.
- The “person” must be in an “industry affecting commerce.” Use of the term “affecting commerce” indicates a congressional intent to have the statutes reach the limits of activity that could be regulated within Congress’ constitutional power. As Congress has extensive commerce power, the requirement that an employer be in an industry affecting commerce does not typically meaningfully limit the reach of the federal discrimination statutes.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 10. Pattern or Practice 47 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Workers cannot receive seniority for any discrimination that occurred prior to the effective date of the particular federal employment discrimination statute. As more time passes from the effective dates of the federal discrimination statutes, this becomes less of an issue; however, it was an issue in some early pattern or practice cases. The Supreme Court has emphasized that Title VII’s remedies are designed both to encourage employers from discriminating in the first place and to make victims of discrimination whole.
- Victims of gross and pervasive discrimination could be denied relief precisely because the unlawful practices had been so successful as totally to deter job applications from members of minority groups. A per se prohibition of relief to nonapplicants could thus put beyond the reach of equity the most invidious effects of employment discrimination—those that extend to the very hope of self-realization. Such a per se limitation on the equitable powers granted to courts by Title VII would be manifestly inconsistent with the “historic purpose of equity to secure complete justice” and with the duty of courts in Title VII cases to render a decree which will so far as possible eliminate the discriminatory effects of the past.
- This shifted the burden to the employer to demonstrate why an inference of illegal motivation could not be drawn from plaintiff’s showing. The Court rejected defendant’s argument that the statistical data must account for the conceivable possibility that the observed underrepresentation was because the minority population was unsuited by age, health, qualifications, or proximity to the work place to seek or be considered for employment. “These attacks go only to the accuracy of the comparison . . . . [F]ine tuning of the statistics could not have obscured the glaring absence of minority line drivers . . . . [T]he company’s inability to rebut the inference of discrimination came not from a misuse of statistics but from the inexorable zero.”
- [S]tatistical analyses have served and will continue to serve an important role in cases in which the existence of discrimination is a disputed issue. We have repeatedly approved the use of statistical proof, where it reached proportions comparable to those in this case to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination[.]
- Statistical proof offered by a plaintiff is simply circumstantial evidence from which intentional discrimination may be inferred. Statistical analysis, frequently coupled with other evidence of disparate treatment, can establish discrimination. If not properly rebutted, it can result in a judgment for the plaintiff.
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Chapter 20. Other Sources of Discrimination Law 25 results (showing 5 best matches)
- States, counties, and cities often have anti-discrimination statutes or ordinances. At times, state law differs from federal law in substantive coverage, procedural requirements, and the remedies provided. Some sources of state law have substantive provisions that mirror the federal statutes and in these cases, federal courts’ interpretation of federal law often provides the baseline for evaluating the state law.
- Although this book focuses on Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and section 1981, there are other sources of anti-discrimination law. At the federal level, these include the Equal Pay Act (EPA), the Genetic Information Non-Disclosure Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and executive orders. This chapter provides a basic overview of these sources of anti-discrimination law. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) is discussed in Chapter 5 (§ 5.08). The Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) was created in part to provide equal opportunity in the workplace. While not technically a non-discrimination statute, an overview of the FMLA is included because of its close ties to discrimination law.
- There are a number of executive orders that provide a federal policy to create equal opportunity in federal employment and to prohibit discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, sexual orientation, or status as a parent.
- The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) is beyond the scope of this book. USERRA is a federal statute that prohibits discrimination based on military service, such as service in the Army Reserve. Public employees may also bring discrimination claims under
- The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a precursor to the ADA. An express purpose of the Act is to “promote and expand employment opportunities in the public and private sectors for handicapped individuals.” The provisions of the Act regarding the employment rights of people with disabilities are contained in three separate statutory sections: § 501 ( ) applies to federal employment, § 503 ( ) regulates the practices of employers which have service, supply, or construction contracts with the federal government, and § 504 ( ) applies to the practices of persons who receive federal financial grants or who operate federal programs.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 4. Regulated Conduct 23 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Discrimination in regard to relationships other than employment are beyond the scope of Title VII, the ADEA, and the employment discrimination portions of the ADA. Section 1981, which is not limited to the employment context, may provide a remedy for race discrimination.
- As discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters, the courts have interpreted the federal discrimination statutes to prohibit a wide swath of discriminatory behavior. The courts define prohibited conduct using court-created terms of art that are specific to the discrimination context. This section introduces those terms of art, which are explained in greater detail in subsequent chapters.
- Individual disparate treatment is the most common claim, in which a worker or a small group of workers alleges that an employer made a specific employment decision because of a protected trait. Pattern or practice cases typically rely on statistical and other evidence to prove that discrimination was the standard operating procedure of an employer, who used a protected trait to make workplace decisions about a larger group of people.
- Title VII prohibits employers, labor organizations and employment agencies from publishing notices or advertisements relating to employment indicating preferences based on a protected trait, unless the preference would be lawful under Title VII. . The ADA prohibits discrimination in job application procedures. . Impermissible advertisements may serve as evidence of discrimination.
- Employment Agencies, Conduct Subject to the Discrimination Statutes
- Open Chapter
Chapter 3. People Protected by Federal Discrimination Law 16 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The federal discrimination statutes do not protect everyone who might face discrimination or retaliation in a work setting. Statutory protection is generally limited to individuals who are current employees, former employees, applicants for employment, or those protected from discrimination by labor organizations or employment agencies. Independent contractors, volunteers, and shareholders are typically not protected under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. Titles are not dispositive, however, and the courts will look at the actual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant to determine coverage. Section 1981 is not limited to the employment context and so protects a broader class of individuals from discrimination in the workplace.
- Military service in a uniformed service, including the National Guard, is not an employment relationship. Thus, admission into a uniformed military service is not regulated by the federal discrimination statutes, nor are decisions concerning persons in the uniformed services in areas such as assignments, promotions, pay, and discharge.
- Care should be taken when determining whether discrimination laws are applicable to the staff of politicians because the Government Employees Rights Act allows coverage for some individuals exempted by the language of the federal discrimination statutes.
- Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA all have the same unhelpful definition of “employee.” “Employee” is defined as an “individual employed by an employer.” . The scope and coverage of the Act thus is determined by common law concepts of “employee” combined with the federal court’s interpretation of those concepts in the specific context of federal discrimination law.
- Whether a person fits within the definition of employee matters in two different contexts in federal discrimination cases. First, employers must have a minimum number of employees to face liability under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA. Therefore, the definition of employee is important to knowing who to count for purposes of coverage. Second, many people claim protection under the statutes by virtue of their status as employees.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 11. Harassment 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The term “tangible employment action” does not appear in the text of the employment discrimination statutes. Rather, it is a court-created term of art applicable in the context. Tangible employment action is not coterminous with the term “adverse action,” which is used to determine the required level of seriousness of actions in the discrimination and retaliation contexts.
- The denial of an employment opportunity because of the individual’s refusal to have a sexual or social relationship with a supervisor is discrimination because of sex. Likewise, demanding and receiving sexual favors in exchange for promotions or other tangible employment actions is illegal sex discrimination.
- Even when an individual is not the direct object of the harassment, an employer will be in violation of the federal discrimination statutes if it creates or allows a pervasive atmosphere hostile to members of a protected class. Thus, repeated racist, sexist, or ethnic jokes, authoring graffiti, repeatedly using racial or ethnic slurs or belittling comments is discrimination in “terms and conditions of employment.” Isolated, non-severe incidents, however, will not violate the statutes. Insults, jokes, comments, and the like must be repeated with sufficient regularity that they constitute a part of the regular working environment.
- The federal discrimination laws prohibit harassment because of a protected trait. A plaintiff may establish harassment based on any of the traits protected under the federal discrimination laws. Generally, courts follow the same framework for analyzing harassment claims under Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA and Section 1981. Most harassment cases involve allegations that a plaintiff faced demeaning or differential speech or conduct because of a protected trait. For example, a plaintiff might claim that a supervisor regularly made fun of her disability, which might constitute disability harassment under the ADA.
- Most harassment cases reflect a second kind of harassment called hostile working environment. A hostile working environment can encompass words or conduct that negatively affect the terms and conditions of employment. For example, when an employer singles out an employee for particularly rough treatment in the form of hazing, practical jokes, or insulting epithets because of the employee’s protected trait, this will violate federal discrimination law. Unusually close supervision, criticism, or reprimands based on the proscribed criteria will be actionable. Repeated sexual inquiries, requests for sexual activity, or unauthorized touching will be improper sex discrimination even if no economic consequences flow from the conduct.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 6. Individual Disparate Treatment 31 results (showing 5 best matches)
- prohibit discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age, and disability. The statutes do not otherwise prohibit workplace conduct, even if that conduct is unfair. Instead, in most states, the presumption of at-will employment still applies. Under that concept an employer may make employment decisions based on good reasons, bad reasons, or no reason at all, subject to existing law and applicable contracts. While the federal discrimination statutes do not generally prohibit unfair workplace conduct, such unfair conduct may be evidence of discrimination, especially when combined with other evidence.
- Most employment discrimination cases are brought against employers, and most of the case law in this field relates to employers’ obligations under the statutes. Both Title VII and the ADEA define the employers’ obligations through two, primary provisions. Under Title VII, it is an unlawful employment practice to do the following:
- The discrimination that is easiest to understand is a policy that expressly, on its face, treats classes differently. These policies are now rare. However, at the time Title VII was passed, some employers had policies that limited employment opportunities for workers based on race or sex. At the time the ADEA became law, employers had policies against hiring workers over a certain age or requiring employees to retire at a certain age. These policies are direct evidence of discrimination in that they explicitly link a protected trait to a denial of employment opportunity. The courts typically rule in favor of the worker on these types of claims without using a complicated analytical structure.
- Courts often use the term “disparate treatment” to describe some of the conduct prohibited under federal discrimination law. Disparate treatment simply means that a person is treated differently because of a protected trait, such as race or sex.
- Courts have created different ways of evaluating discrimination, depending on what kinds of facts a case presents. The courts have given different labels or names to certain factual scenarios. Learning employment discrimination law requires learning a new field-specific vocabulary that judges and practitioners use to navigate the complex doctrine. At the outset it is worth noting that very little of this vocabulary is contained in the statutes themselves. Additionally, many of the frameworks do not derive directly from or derive only loosely from the statutory language. This is, in part, due to the fact that the Supreme Court’s earliest attempts at interpreting these statutes pre-dated the rise of textualist statutory interpretation methods that happened in the late 1980s.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 9. Disparate Treatment: Other Issues 51 results (showing 5 best matches)
- However, care must be taken when using this idea. Unfair treatment absent discrimination does not violate federal discrimination law. However, unfair treatment may be evidence of discrimination.
- The stray remarks doctrine is not contained within the text of any of the main federal discrimination statutes. Instead, the stray remarks doctrine is a special evidentiary rule that courts created and apply in discrimination cases. Through this doctrine, judges can refuse to consider discriminatory comments or actions in the workplace if the court deems the comments too remote in time from the contested decision, not made in the context of the challenged employment practice, not made by a decisionmaker, or too ambiguous to show discriminatory bias.
- The federal courts use the term “cat’s paw” to describe cases with a particular type of fact pattern. In cat’s paw cases, the employer alleges that it cannot be held liable for discrimination because a person acting without discriminatory intent actually made the employment decision. For example, if a biased supervisor criticizes an employee’s performance in neutral terms and a human resources officer makes a decision to terminate the individual, the employer might argue that there is no discrimination if the human resources officer did not exhibit any animus, but rather relied on the facially neutral criticism provided by the supervisor. In a cat’s paw case, the plaintiff typically argues that the decisionmaker relied on biased information, served as a conduit for the discrimination of others, or merely rubber stamped a discriminatory decision made by another person.
- The federal discrimination statutes do not prohibit employers from making bad decisions or force them to make good ones. Instead, in the disparate treatment context, the discrimination statutes only prohibit discriminatory conduct. Courts have expressed this idea by stating that they must respect the business judgment of employers. Alternatively, in summary judgment orders and other similar contexts, federal judges will often repeat the mantra that they do not sit as super-personnel departments. In its weak form, there is no problem with this idea. The federal discrimination statutes are not a fairness code, and they do not require employers to be nice or to treat employees well. Instead, the statutes prohibit conduct taken because of a protected trait.
- Like the stray remarks doctrine, the underlying intuition of the honest belief doctrine is correct in a limited subset of cases. If the employer truly made its decision under a faulty set of facts and there is no other evidence suggesting discrimination, then it would be appropriate for a judge to find in favor of the employer. No special employment discrimination doctrine is needed to reach this outcome. In such a case, the worker has simply failed to present any evidence that a protected trait played a negative role in an employment outcome. Like the stray remarks doctrine, though, courts often use the honest belief doctrine in cases where the facts are not straightforward.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 14. Disability Discrimination 79 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) prohibits disability discrimination in employment, public services, and public accommodations provided by both public and private entities. The ADA greatly expanded disability discrimination protections provided at the federal level. Title I of the ADA covers employment discrimination.
- The ADA does more than prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability. It also requires employers to accommodate certain individuals. Under the ADA, an employer commits an unlawful employment practice by:
- The ADA is not the only federal law that may limit an employer’s ability to require exams or make inquiries. For example, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) limits employers’ ability to request and use polygraphs. . The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (GINA) limits employers’ ability to request and use genetic information (as defined by the statute).
- The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a precursor to the ADA. It prohibits disability discrimination by programs receiving federal financial assistance, certain federal contractors, and for some federal employees.
- Another issue is whether a plaintiff pursuing an ADA discrimination or retaliation claim must establish that she faced an adverse employment action as the courts have defined that concept in the Title VII discrimination and retaliation context. On its face, the ADA uses different language than Title VII. more specifically defines prohibited discrimination in a seven-part definitional section.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 8. Mixed Motive 29 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The plurality continued by discussing the inherent tension within employment law. While Title VII prohibits discrimination based on protected traits, the employer maintains the ability to make employment decisions on other lawful grounds.
- is important for several reasons. First, it is the genesis of the stray remarks doctrine that remains important in employment discrimination law.
- is in direct conflict with a majority of the Court in , which held that a plaintiff proceeding on a discrimination claim under Title VII must establish that a protected trait played a motivating factor in an employment decision. Given the existence of
- Whether state law provides for a motivating factor analysis for discrimination and retaliation claims is highly dependent on state-specific issues, including the language of the specific state statute, whether the statute was amended to incorporate changes similar to the 1991 amendments to Title VII, and whether the state tends to follow federal decisions when construing its statute. It is worth noting that many states combine all of the protected traits into one anti-discrimination statute. In these states, it is analytically inconsistent for the state statute to be construed as reflecting the 1991 amendments to Title VII,
- Importantly, a majority of the Court rejected the idea that Title VII requires a plaintiff to establish that a protected trait was the “but for” cause of an employment decision. The plurality reasoned that “to construe the words ‘because of’ as colloquial shorthand for ‘but-for causation,’ . . . is to misunderstand them.” . at 240. The plurality held that to prevail on a discrimination claim, the plaintiff must establish that a protected trait is a motivating factor in a decision. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied heavily on the underlying purpose of Title VII. Reading Title VII’s primary operative provision in its entirety, the Court noted: “We take these words to mean that gender must be irrelevant to employment decisions.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 16. Retaliation 55 results (showing 5 best matches)
- To a large extent, the federal discrimination statutes rely on private individuals to enforce them. The retaliation provisions are critical to enforcing the statutes’ substantive goals by providing a remedy for individuals who face retaliation after trying to enforce the statutes’ promises. Additionally, the Supreme Court has indicated that the employment discrimination statutes do not just provide a remedy once discrimination has happened. They ideally would prohibit discrimination from occurring in the first place. To that end, the statutes encourage employees to complain about workplace discrimination in an effort to stop discrimination from occurring or getting worse. In certain harassment cases, the employee must complain to preserve his or her ability to later recover in court. As the statutes encourage employee complaints, the retaliation provisions ideally should protect employees who do so.
- Federal discrimination statutes make it illegal to discriminate against any individual “because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice” by the statutes.
- Whether an individual’s belief is “reasonable” should be given a non-legal construction. After all, it is not reasonable to expect a typical worker to understand the intricacies and reach of the federal discrimination statutes. If a reasonable person would have believed the employer committed the acts being opposed and would have perceived the employer’s activity to be within the scope of federal discrimination law, then opposition thereto is protected even though an attorney might conclude that the employer’s conduct is legal.
- Employees are not required to be members of unions or be engaged in trying to form a union to be protected for engaging in concerted activity. Workers presenting job-related grievances to their employer are engaged in concerted activity for mutual aid and protection. Courts construe these protections broadly and apply them to any concerted efforts to improve the terms and conditions of work. Workers have this protection even if their complaints would not be protected under federal discrimination law.
- There must be a causal connection between the protected activity and a subsequent adverse action. The plaintiff must establish that her protected activity was the “but for” cause of the subsequent action.
- Open Chapter
Chapter 19. Procedure 70 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Employment discrimination complaints must follow the same rules provided by the applicable court system. In , the Supreme Court considered whether a plaintiff’s discrimination complaint in federal court needed to provide facts to support each portion of the test. The Court held that a plaintiff does not need to plead the individual factors of the test. test is not the only way for a plaintiff to prove discrimination. Additionally, the test does not spell out the “elements” of a Title VII claim. Rather, the test is an evidentiary framework that the courts use to evaluate discrimination claims. Additionally, because the prongs of the may change depending on the specific facts of the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff may not be able to advocate a particular version of the test until after discovery.
- The Court recognized that this broad definition of what constitutes a charge would allow many types of documents to constitute charges. The Court indicated this was consistent with the goals of federal discrimination law, especially considering that at the charge-filing stage many individuals are acting without the assistance of counsel.
- In most cases, the validity of settlement and waiver agreements in the employment discrimination context is governed by the same law that governs these agreements in other contexts. However, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) places special rules on settlements and waivers of ADEA claims. Like with the other employment discrimination statutes, workers may not prospectively waive claims under the ADEA.
- Many employees waive their right to file a discrimination claim in court, as it is common for employers to require employees to sign arbitration agreements. These arbitration agreements require employees to adjudicate their employment discrimination claims through arbitration, rather than through a public, court process.
- If the EEOC dismisses the charge because it finds that no reasonable cause exists, plaintiff still is free to file a complaint. The Supreme Court stated, “The Act does not restrict a complainant’s right to sue to those charges as to which the Commission has made findings of reasonable cause, and we will not engraft on the statute a requirement which may inhibit the review of claims of employment discrimination in the federal courts.”
- Open Chapter
Chapter 18. Remedies 109 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Pre-judgment interest is interest on damages that arose from the date of the injury until the judgment. Outside the context of federal discrimination law, the Supreme Court has held that pre-judgment interest is not a separate remedy, but rather is part of make-whole relief.
- In some instances, the employer may simply be unaware of the relevant federal prohibition. There will be cases, moreover, in which the employer discriminates with the distinct belief that its discrimination is lawful. The underlying theory of discrimination may be novel or otherwise poorly recognized, or an employer may reasonably believe that its discrimination satisfies a bona fide occupational qualification defense or other statutory exception to liability.
- The purpose of the federal discrimination statutes and their remedies provisions is to encourage employers to “self-examine and to self-evaluate their employment practices and to endeavor to eliminate, so far as possible, the last vestiges” of discrimination. . The Supreme Court has further noted: “Deterrence is one object of these statutes. Compensation for injuries caused by the prohibited discrimination is another.” . One of the purposes of relief under Title VII is to make the plaintiff whole.
- . In the case, a woman sued for sex discrimination after being denied a promotion. The Court noted that the structure of , suggested that punitive damages should only be awarded in a subset of intentional (non-disparate impact) cases. The Court held that a plaintiff is not required to show outrageous or egregious behavior to obtain punitive damages. The Court indicated that the terms “malice” and “reckless indifference” pertain to the “employer’s knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination.” must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law to be liable in punitive damages.”
- On its face Title VII imposes no absolute obligations upon the trial court to order restitutional relief in favor of successful plaintiffs, but repeatedly premises the court’s power with “may.” Notwithstanding this appearance of broad discretion, the Supreme Court has recognized two overriding Congressional purposes that severely limit the exercise of discretion: (1) the obligation to “make whole” victims of illegal discrimination, and (2) the need to deter and eradicate employment discrimination. In , the Supreme Court addressed when courts should grant backpay. In that case, the trial court found that the defendant engaged in race discrimination, but did not order backpay because it found no bad faith. ...should award backpay. If the trial court is to limit or deny remedies of hiring, reinstatement, back wages, interest on back wages, and seniority, it must carefully articulate its reasons for doing so, and the denial will be “permissible only for reasons which, applied... ...of...
- Open Chapter
Chapter 13. Religious Accommodation 54 results (showing 5 best matches)
- There has not been significant litigation discussing the intersection of RFRA with the federal discrimination statutes.
- An emerging issue in federal discrimination law is the impact of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Title VII allows religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion. . The ministerial exception also provides religious organizations a limited ability to discriminate on the basis of other protected traits as to those individuals who fall within the exception.
- It is clear that prohibiting employment discrimination is a “compelling governmental interest.”
- Other provisions make the unions directly liable for their own discrimination in the administration of their affairs. , (2). Refusal of admission into membership, discrimination in membership privileges, or the discriminatory referral of work based on religion or religious practices will violate these provisions.
- Title VII prohibits discrimination because of religion. For example, a plaintiff may sue for harassment, individual disparate treatment, pattern or practice, or disparate impact based on religion. In addition, Title VII requires employers (at least at a minimal level) to accommodate religious beliefs and practices. Title VII provides:
- Open Chapter
Chapter 17. Defenses 30 results (showing 5 best matches)
- BFOQ recognizes that in a very limited set of circumstances it is appropriate for a protected trait to play a role in employment decisions. Nonetheless, the types of situations where such discrimination is appropriate are rare. The courts narrowly construe the BFOQ defense.
- A seniority system can be bona fide even if it perpetuates discrimination that pre-dated the particular federal statute’s enactment.
- The federal discrimination statutes include several defenses. Many of these defenses allow conduct to occur that might otherwise be characterized as discriminatory. This chapter supplements Chapter 2, which discusses exemptions from coverage. For example, Title VII exempts Native American tribes and bona fide private membership clubs from coverage. Additionally, some defenses are discussed in the context of the proof structure in which they are used. For example, in an ADEA disparate impact claim the defendant might argue that it does not face liability because its policy is a reasonable factor other than age (RFOA). In the Title VII context, the defendant might assert that disparate impact liability is inappropriate because its policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity.
- The statutes do not otherwise define what is required to create a bona fide seniority system. The Supreme Court has noted, “Unlike other methods of allocating employment benefits and opportunities, such as subjective evaluations or educational requirements, the principal feature of any and every ‘seniority system’ is that preferential treatment is dispensed on the basis of some measure of time served in employment.” . The Supreme Court has indicated “[a] ‘seniority system’ is a scheme that, alone or in tandem with non-‘seniority’ criteria, allots to employees ever improving employment rights and benefits as their relative lengths of pertinent employment increase.”
- It shall not be an unlawful employment practice under this title for any employer to differentiate upon the basis of sex in determining the amount of the wages or compensation paid or to be paid to employees of such employer if such differentiation is authorized by the provisions of Section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended [Equal Pay Act].
- Open Chapter
Chapter 7. The McDonnell Douglas Framework 71 results (showing 5 best matches)
- It should be noted that the federal discrimination statutes do not contain the term “adverse action.” Instead, the statutes prohibit employers from taking certain actions and from limiting the “terms, conditions, or privileges” of employment based on a protected trait. Title VII and the ADEA also prohibit actions that “limit . . . employees . . . in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee.”
- , if the white man did not receive the job, he could survive the prima facie case if he applied for the job, was qualified, was rejected, and either of the other two individuals received the job. However, it is difficult to understand how this set of facts creates a presumption of discrimination. At the same time, it seems counterintuitive to refuse to allow the white man access to the framework. It would be strange for federal civil rights law to have one set of proof structures for white men and a separate set of proof structures for other litigants.
- , the Court asserted that the purpose of Title VII is to stop discriminatory preferences in employment. Title VII is designed “to assure equality of employment opportunities and to eliminate those discriminatory practices and devices which have fostered racially stratified job environments to the disadvantage of minority citizens.” neutral employment and personnel decisions. In the implementation of such decisions, it is abundantly clear that Title VII tolerates no racial discrimination, subtle or otherwise.”
- Giving unfavorable references for former employees based on the individual’s protected status denies employment opportunities elsewhere, and . Setting aside a test result that qualifies employees for possible employment or promotion is discrimination that denies “employment opportunities” to all successful applicants even though many of the qualified applicants will not be employed or promoted.
- held that awarding law firm partnerships was within the scope of Title VII. . Even though the determination of who should be a partner may not be an employment decision, for promotion to a partner was a “term, condition, or privilege” of employment granted to those hired as associates. Therefore, allocation of
- Open Chapter
Outline 57 results (showing 5 best matches)
Index 166 results (showing 5 best matches)
West Academic Publishing’s Emeritus Advisory Board 15 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Professor of Law Emeritus, University of San Diego Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Michigan
- Dean and Joseph L. Rauh, Jr. Chair of Public Interest LawUniversity of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
- Professor of Law, Chancellor and Dean Emeritus University of California, Hastings College of the Law
- Professor of Law Emeritus, Pepperdine University Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California, Los Angeles
- Professor of LawUniversity of Houston Law Center
- Open Chapter
Table of Cases 56 results (showing 5 best matches)
- United States Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. AutoZone, Inc., 145
- Carroll v. Talman Federal Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Chicago, 143
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 435
- Board of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 13, 428
- Local 53 of Intern. Ass’n of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers v. Vogler, 146
- Open Chapter
Copyright Page 3 results
- The publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice, and this publication is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. If you require legal or other expert advice, you should seek the services of a competent attorney or other professional.
- West, West Academic Publishing, and West Academic are trademarks of West Publishing Corporation, used under license.
- Printed in the United States of America
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: October 29th, 2020
- ISBN: 9781684676163
- Subject: Employment Discrimination
- Series: Nutshells
- Type: Overviews
- Description: This text is designed to assist students—both law and undergraduate—to achieve a basic understanding of this complex area of the law, and provide an up to date review for the practitioner. The focus is upon Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, national origin, sex, and religious discrimination), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act as applied to the workplace. The book addresses the method of proving violations, both disparate treatment and disparate impact analysis, including a brief primer of statistical proof, as well as the defenses to the express use of proscribed classifications. Finally, the book provides a quick reference to the complex procedural and remedial provisions of the statutes.
