Suchergebnisse

This article is divided into three parts. First, it explores certain issues inherent in a Nondiscrimination claim, including how the Nondiscrimination provision has been mistakenly conflated with other RLUIPA land use provisions, whether a showing of direct hostility toward a particular faith by governmental actors is required, and what might qualify as adequate comparators in a case where a claimant asserts that it was treated differently and worse than similarly situated applicants. Second, the article proposes application of the reasoning in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green to some Nondiscrimination claims. This would be achieved by burden shifting; after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of dissimilar treatment, triggering a presumption of discrimination, the burden would shift to the defendant to show a nondiscriminatory motive for its actions. Finally, the article provides different real-world examples and applies the suggested solution to the various contexts in which a Nondiscrimination claim arises.

This article is divided into three parts. First, it explores certain issues inherent in a Nondiscrimination claim, including how the Nondiscrimination provision has been mistakenly conflated with other RLUIPA land use provisions, whether a showing of direct hostility toward a particular faith by governmental actors is required, and what might qualify as adequate comparators in a case where a claimant asserts that it was treated differently and worse than similarly situated applicants. Second, the article proposes application of the reasoning in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green to some Nondiscrimination claims. This would be achieved by burden shifting; after the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of dissimilar treatment, triggering a presumption of discrimination, the burden would shift to the defendant to show a nondiscriminatory motive for its actions. Finally, the article provides different real-world examples and applies the suggested solution to the various contexts in which a Nondiscrimination claim arises.

On September 1, 2020, LLMC, a non-profit Minnesota-based consortium of law libraries, launched the open-access portal RIGHTS! (http://www.llmc.com/rights/home.aspx). If you are looking for primary materials such as current constitutions, human/civil rights acts, Non-Governmental Organizations' websites, advocacy organizations, and other resources specifically dealing with injustices regarding marginalized parties, this is the place to look. Their stated mission is preserving legal titles and government documents, while making copies inexpensively available digitally through its on-line service, LLMC-Digital (http://www.llmc.com/about.aspx). The original intent was to focus on primarily US and Canadian sources, as seen by the dropdown navigation on the left of the site, but the site also includes other international sources. The page opens at the "Civil and Human Rights Law Portal—Global," which includes links to various government organizations, judicial information, non-governmental organizations, research and education resources and various documents from different countries. The RIGHTS! site can also be reached through the parent page (http://LLMC.com) with the link to RIGHTS! Located in the right-hand column. The RIGHTS! Portal is sponsored by the Vincent C. Immel Law Library at Saint Louis University.

The November 2004 publication of Richard Sanders Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools in the STANFORD LAW REVIEW set off an intense debate in American legal education. Some aspects of Sanders work may achieve broad agreement, such as data on the disparate performance of blacks and whites on grades, graduation and bar passage. However, other aspects have already sparked significant disagreement. Many of Sanders critics take issue with his contention that racial disparities in law school academic performance and bar passage rates are a result of an academic mismatch, whereby the intended beneficiaries of large racial preferences are admitted to law schools for which they are not otherwise academically qualified. This brief points out some insights and arguments about the affirmative action in American Law Schools. ; U.S Commission on Civil Rights

AbstractIn this paper, I want to focus on some aspects of the political process in India that have an impact on the treatment of religious minorities. Much of the discussion on multicultural jurisdictions deals with differentiated citizenship rights that allow religious groups to maintain their normative universe. This literature shows the tensions surrounding individual and group rights. I want to approach the question of religious freedom from a rather different angle. I want to first focus on the protection of bare life in the face of religious violence and then examine the issue of conversion from one religion to another. The issues of human security and conversion are linked in India, since Hindu nationalists see Muslims as forcibly converted Hindus who should be reconverted. To highlight the importance of majoritarian nationalism rather than political systems in the treatment of religious minorities, I offer a brief comparison with China.