Suchergebnisse

Are employment discrimination plaintiffs viewed by society and by judges with an increased skepticism? This Article urges that the same actor inference, the stray comment doctrine, and strict temporal nexus requirements, as courts have applied them, make up a larger and dangerous trend in the area of employment discrimination jurisprudence—that of courts reverting to special, judge-made "shortcuts" to curtail or even bypass analysis necessary to justify the disposal or proper adjudication of a case. This shorthand across different doctrines reveals a willingness of the judiciary to proxy monolithic assumptions for the individualized reasoned analyses mandated by the relevant antidiscrimination legislation. This Article contrasts the shortcuts trend in employment discrimination jurisprudence with those presumptions and inferences that have traditionally been afforded to plaintiffs suing under traditional tort law. It also explores the potential root causes of the skepticism and hostility with which judges have regarded employment discrimination plaintiffs, as opposed to the way in which they have regarded traditional tort plaintiffs.

Discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans remains pervasive given the current lack of anti-discrimination legislation at both the federal and state levels. Specifically, discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identity remains legal in most states, while the federal government has failed to expand employment discrimination protections to LGBT employees.

Introduces employment discrimination and the various US acts to fight this. Looks, particularly, at the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC), created in 1964 to enforce the laws against employment discrimination. Discusses the make up of this federal committee and how it operates on behalf of the individual. Further discusses and highlights the main categories which are: sexual harassment; race/colour discrimination; age discrimination; national origin discrimination; and fills out the Americans with Disabilities Act, giving all the relevant information required to take action against employers. Gives further examples of complaints procedures and how to use them. Concludes that employees have many more safeguards now than previously and that firms now have to respect the individual or "pay" the consequences.

This Special Project examines the back pay decisions and analyzes the problems that have confronted the courts dealing with this remedy for employment discrimination in the context of Title VII and section 1981. Because of the enormity of the issues that have arisen in Stage I of the proceedings, however, and the extensive coverage given those problems by the courts and commentators, the Special Project will deal only with the recovery stage, or Stage II, of the litigation. Consequently, the reader should assume that liability for employment discrimination has already been established in each of the cases discussed below. Before reaching the various procedural and substantive issues surrounding back pay awards, however, the Project, in part II, presents an over-view of the statutory authority for back pay including the legislative history of Title VII and section 1981. Part II also discusses the development of the appropriate standard for the exercise of judicial discretion in awarding back pay. Part III examines the parties liable for the payment of back pay. In part IV the Project explores presumptive eligibility for back pay and in part V considers possible grounds on which a defendant may seek to rebut the presumption. Parts VI and VII discuss the proof-of-claim procedure that must be followed by discriminatees claiming back pay and the procedure for determining individual awards. Part VIII then identifies and analyzes the various problems facing courts in allocating the burdens of proof that plaintiffs and defendants must meet before the court can determine individual awards. Following the discussion of the order and allocation of the burdens of proof, part IX outlines the various methods used by the courts to compute individual back pay awards and also discusses other issues such as the elements includable and deductible, the mitigation requirement,and the limitation periods for back pay. In part X the Special Project examines the problems that may arise when the parties agree to a settlement of back pay ...

The role that the disabled have been confined to play in our work force changed drastically with the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act on July 26,1992 for employers with twenty‐five or more employees. Indeed, as of July 26,1994 the law will also apply to employers with 15–24 employees. The focus of ADA is to enable individuals with physical or mental disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities by removing obstacles such as job requirements that are not in alignment with the essential duties of the position. The law also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations that do not impose an undue hardship on the organisation but are considered key in assisting a disabled applicant or employee in performing the essential duties of the job. Originally drafted by Robert Bergdorf, associate professor of law at the District of Columbia School of Law, the ADA became the seventh major component of the federal equal employment opportunity law that prohibits employment discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) has responsibility for the enforcement of the employment component of the ADA, also known as Title I.

While there have been prohibitions, by the federal, state, and local governments, against racial discrimination in employment since the 1940s, the major legal weapon against such discrimination has been Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The largest part of the burden of enforcing this statute has not been borne by the federal government, but rather by civil rights organizations, whose resources have been limited. A remarkable record of favorable judicial decisions has been achieved in cases brought under this statute. Nevertheless, the disparities between blacks and whites in average income and in proportionate unemployment have not been markedly reduced. Stronger legislation and a greater commitment on the part of all branches of government as well as the public seem necessary if there is to be more significant progress toward truly fair employment practices.