{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\uc1{\fonttbl{\f0\fcharset0 Times New
Roman;}{\f1\fcharset0
Tahoma;}}{\colortbl
;}{\stylesheet{\s0\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1\f0\fs20
\kerning28
Normal;}}\paperw12240\paperh15840\margt1440\margl1800\margr1800\margb1440
\headery720\footery864\deftab720\pgnstart1\viewkind1\viewscale100\fet0{\*\docvar
{ColorSet}{-1}}{\*\docvar{ColorPos}{-1}}{\*\docvar{StyleSet}{-1}}{\*\docvar{StylePos
}{-1}}\pard\plain\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qc\sl240\slmult1{\ul\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
{\header\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\fs20\par
}{\footer\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640{\ulnone
\fs20\tab{\chpgn}}\fs20\par}Employment law\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
INTRODUCTION
\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Competitive
Market Forces may not punish discrimination b/c: (1) must have many firms
bidding
for many workers (2) must be based on perfect knowledge (3) parties must be
mobile
(4) must be no transaction cost (5) must not be consistent with profitability (
6) over-enforcement cost (7) backlash cost.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
one\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 A.
Common
law & Economic realities test.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Darden -
In determining whether a party is an ee under the general common law of agency,
we consider the hiring party\u8217\'92s right to control the manner and means of
how execute task (amount skill, who\u8217\'92s tools, location of work,
duration
, right to assign more work, method of payment, hired party\u8217\'92s role in
hiring
and paying assistants, regular part of hiring party\u8217\'92s business, ee
benefits
, tax treatment of ee) (2R Agency {\f1\lang1024{{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 167
\\f
"Tahoma" \\s 12}{\fldrslt}}}} 220 = no exhaustive list). \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Clackamas
- Test for whether shareholders in professional corporation (as opposed to a
partnership
) are ee\u8217\'92s is the Darden test. Whether the shareholder-directors
operate
independently and manage the business or instead are subject to the
firm\u8217\'92
s control. Need 15 ee during 20 weeks for ADA to apply.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Lauritzen
- For purposes of social welfare legislation such as the FLSA, ee\u8217\'92s
are
those who as a matter of economic reality are dependent upon the business to
which
they render services (Test for who is an ee under the FLSA is deliberately
broader
than \u8220\'93right to control test\u8220\'93). Easterbrook is skeptical of
test
and states that the reasons for blocking vicarious liability have nothing to do
with the functions of the FLSA.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 B.
Joint
employer doctrine\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Lopez - ?
Of whether ee is under JOINT EMPLOYMENT: (1) extent to which the work is a
discrete
line-job forming an integral part of the joint er\u8217\'92s integrated process
of production (2) whether joint er\u8217\'92s premises and equipment were used
for the work (3) extent to which the ee\u8217\'92s work is performed for the er
(
4) permanence or duration of relationship with er (5) er\u8217\'92s degree of
control
over ee (6) whether K passed w/out change from er to ee (7) whether ee were
part
of a business organization capable of shifting as a unit between er\u8217\'92s
(
8) additional factors. Where ee\u8217\'92s economically dependent on both
er\u8217
\'92s. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 EEOC say
that both temp agency and er are joint employers of ee unless temp agency
provides
all equipment and has exclusive right to control. (40 n.3).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
two\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Status
discrimination\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Introduction
{\b0\par}}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Stereotypes
and generalizations about a protected class may be sufficiently accurate to be
efficient as compared to a more refined but expensive test, but these efficient
generalizations can inflict on their objects significant cumulative economic and
psychological harm and this harm can fuel a vicious cycle that enhances the
accuracy
and efficiency of these generalizations.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Moreover
discrimination in education and housing make it more difficult for some ee\u8217
\'92s to satisfy certain neutral employment qualifications and thus may compound
unfair treatment of a social group.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Arrow -
skin
color and diplomas are a cheap source of information. Competitive forces may
not
end discrimination b/c of perceptions and the related personal investment
(return
on investment). Thus demand is depressed and thus supply is depressed.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Title VII
covers all private er\u8217\'92s affecting interstate commerce with 15 ee\u8217
\'92s and all government er\u8217\'92s (fed, state, local). Section 703 (a):\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (a) It
shall
be an unlawful employment practice for an er (union or employ agency):\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (1) to
fail
or refuse to hire or to dischare any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against
any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges
of employment, because of such individual\u8217\'92s race, color, religion, sex
, or national origin; or\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (2) to
limit
, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way
which
would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities, or
otherwise adversely affect his statutes as an ee, because of such
individual\u8217
\'92s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 EEOC will
try to remedy problem through informal conciliation first and then can bring
suit
. Also there is a private right of action where may seek limited legal damages
and
equitable relief, but must go through EEOC and state and local agencies
possessing
anti-discrimination authority first.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Title VII
forbids: (1) intentional discrimination [individual and systemic] (2) face
neutral
procedures that result in disparate impact\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 B.
Proving
Individual Disparate Treatment\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 McDonnell
Douglas - prima facie case if (1) racial minority [any race, sex, national
origin
] (2) applied & qualified (3) rejected [discharged] (4) er continued to look
[others
retained]. Then burden shifts to D to explain legitimate/nondiscriminatory
reason
. Then P gets chance to show explanation is pretext.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 704(a) -
forbids retaliation against those sho protest, however courts only protect those
who LAWFULLY protest.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Burdine -
The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact remains with the P. Once
burden
of productin shifts to D, D doesn\u8217\'92t have to prove that it was actually
motivated by proffered reasons, reasons need only be legally sufficient (there
can be no credibility assessment of reason). However reason must be framed with
sufficient clarity (clear and rs specific) to give P a full and fair opportunity
to demonstrate pretext. P must show that similarly situated ee\u8217\'92s were
not treated equally. Title VII does not demand that an er give preferential
treatment
to women or minorities.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Buhrmaster
- strong inference of no discrimination if same person that hired then
fired.\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 St.
Mary\u8217
\'92s - Jerk hypothesis (even if think er\u8217\'92s reason is pretext still can
find for er), However, Reeves - which says that ADEA test is same as McDonnell
Douglas and states that even though don\u8217\'92t have to can find for P if
makes
prima facie case and disbelieve D\u8217\'92s reasons.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Price
Waterhouse
- P need only show that his protected status was a considered factor in D\u8217
\'92s decision. D then must show by a POE that would have reached same decision
even in the absence of the protected status. Proving the same decision would be
justified is not the same as proving the same decision would have been made =
must
show that in a substantial # of instances have treated people in the same
circumstance
without the protected trait the same way.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 CRA 1991
Section 107 add 703(m) which states that it is an unlawful employment practice
even
if other factors motivated practice. However 107 adds to 706(g) the proviso
that
if D shows that would have taken same action then the court shall not award
damages
, back pay, or equitable relief and court may only grant declaratory, and
injunctive
relief + atty fees and cost directly attributable to pursuit of the claim under
703(m).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 87 n.5 -
no mixed motive if reason given id false (pretext).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 706 (g) -
requires P to mitigate her damages, but don\u8217\'92t have to go into another
line
of work or take a demotion but will forfeit backpay if she refuses a
substantially
equivalent job. Most courts require to stay in job stay in job unless can show
constructive discharge (discrimination would force rs person to feel compelled
to
resign) p.90 n. t7 relief. Back pay period ends when give reinstatement offer
or P becomes ineligible for the job. If would be to hostile to return to work
then
court can give front pay. Can recover compensatory for unlawful intentional
discrimination
pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses (mental anguish). Also allows punitive for
intentional
by private er if \u8220\'93with malice or with reckless indifference to a
federally
protected right\u8221\'94. Legal damages only available if cant recover under
1981
(SOL run or waiver) + are capped at between 50 and 300K depending on # of
ee\u8217
\'92s.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 McKinnon
-
P is entitled to a finding of a violation (for the sake of deterrence and
compensation
) even if after-acquired evidence of wrongdoing would have resulted in discharge
= only effects remedy not violation. Remedy = back pay from period fired until
discovered wrongdoing , but no reinstatement or front pay = now D lawyer must
look
for independent wrongdoing as part of professional obligation. EEOC says
punitive
are not barred by after acquired info. Retaliatory investigations + how did
er\u8217
\'92s treat other instances of similar misconduct in the past.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Er is
free
to discriminate in silly non protected ways (all those born on Monday).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C.
Proving
Systemic Disparate Treatment\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Teamsters
- to establish pattern or practice of discriminating then must prove by a
preponderance
of the evidence that racial discrimination was the er\u8217\'92s standard
operating
procedure - the regular rather than the unusual practice. Statistics showing
racial
imbalance are probative because such an imbalance is often a telltale sign of
purposeful
discrimination; absent explanation (evidence showing that the figures for the
general
population do not reflect the pool of qualified applicants).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Hazelwood
- gov\u8217\'92t can\u8217\'92t discriminate under 14 Amend and T7. Statistics
should be based on the labor market + unless discouraged in some way to apply
then
best method of statistics is applicant flow.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Pattern
or
practice finding means broader remedies = er then bears burden in remedy stage
of proving that any member of the disadvantaged class subject to er\u8217\'92s
decision
making was not also subject to the proven discriminatory policy (presume
discrimination
against all members of class that were rejected and er has burden to show legit
reason not hired). Can enjoin and make promote minimal % under some
circumstances
. If gov\u8217\'92t wants to sue state or local gov\u8217\'92t for pattern or
practice
then Atty General must bring suit not EEOC.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 D.
Proving
Unjustified Disparate Impact\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 p. 111 n.
1 - should use applicant flow data for statistics unless there is a ? as to the
fairness of the process through which applicants are obtained = (recruitment).
Applicant
may not be best also b/c: er may not have compiled reliable date, to few
hirings
to permit statistical comparison, chilling effect of er\u8217\'92s reputation
as
a discriminator. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Griggs -
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 the employment practice which operates to exclude Negroes cannot be shown to
be related to job performance, the practice is prohibited. Congress has placed
on
the er the burden of showing that any given requirement must have a manifest
relationship
to the employment in question.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Teal -
There
is no \u8220\'93bottom line defense\u8221\'94. Section 703(a)(2) prohibits
practices
that would deprive or tend to deprive \u8220\'93any individual of employment
opportunities
.\u8221\'94 The principle focus of the statute is the protection of the
individual
ee, rather than the protection of the minority group as a whole.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Multicomponent
decision - section 105 of the 1991 act provides that a P must
\u8220\'93demonstrate
that each particular challenged employment practice causes a disparate
impact\u8221
\'94, except that where the P can demonstrate \u8220\'93that the elements of
respondents
decision making process are not capable of separation for analysis, then the
decision
making process may be analyzed as one employment practice.\u8221\'94 See Powell
footnote 8.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Section
106
of the 1991 act makes it unlawful to \u8220\'93adjust the scores of, use
different
cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related test
on
the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.\u8221\'94\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 p.115 n.4
- EEOC uses an 80% or four-fifths rule for disparate impact challenges = EEOC
will
regard a selection rate for a minority group that is less than 80% of the
selection
rate for the group with the highest pass rate as evidence of adverse impact.
(60
% [6 out of 10] divided by 80% [8 out of 10] = 75%.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Albermarle
paper - If the er proves that the challenged requirement are job related, the P
may then show that other selection devises without a similar discriminatory
effect
would also \u8220\'93serve the employer\u8217\'92s legitimate interest in the
efficient
and trustworthy workmanship.\u8221\'94\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Dothard -
test must measure the person for the job and not the person in the abstract\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Beazer -
rule must bear a manifest relationship to the employment in question. (1)
disparate
impact analysis has some limits[703(k)(3) limits use of disparate impact
analysis
in challenges to bars to employment of drug users] (2) didn\u8217\'92t make out
prima facie case b/c didn\u8217\'92t show % of minorities in {\i private}
methadone
clinics.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Watson -
\u8220\'93We are persuaded that the disparate impact analysis is in principle no
less applicable to subjective employment criteria than to objective or
standardized
test.\u8221\'94 Test that combines both is subjective in nature. (Er must
defend
why it uses that test = cost effective)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Lamp
works
(p.146 n.6) - cant use disparate impact analysis when er relies on unsolicited
employment applications generated by word of mouth, so long as er has remained
passive
of the ee\u8217\'92s recruitment efforts.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Wards
Cove
- proving that cannery workers are mostly minorities whereas no cannery are
mostly
not does not fulfill prima facie case. Ee\u8217\'92s must {\i specifically}
show
that each challenged practice has a disparate impact.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 1991 Act
section 105 - D must show demonstrate (production and persuasion) that practice
is a business necessity to escape disparate impact prima facie case + cannot use
business necessity to escape intentional discrimination case. Also liability if
there is a less discriminatory alternative and D refuses to adopt the practice.
Moreover, if an er can show that a practice doesn\u8217\'92t have a disparate
impact
then there is no need to show business necessity. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Albemarle
- Criterion validation (correlation between performance scores and test
scores),
construct validity (test for traits that are thought to lead to success on the
job
= measures psychological constructs such as intelligence) & Content validity
(test
based on actual job = typing score). Criterion validation = (1) must validate
test
job by job [unless no significant differences between the jobs] (2)
can\u8217\'92
t base on vague subjective supervisor ranking [standards used to rank must be
specific
and must represent major or critical work behaviors] (3) can\u8217\'92t test
for
a high position those applying for a position at a low level [unless can show
that job progression structures are so established that new ee\u8216\'91s will
in
a rs time probably progress to a higher level] (4) can\u8217\'92t validate on
old
white men if going to give to young minorities [ validity should be determined
on subjects who are at the age or in the same educational or vocational
situation
as the persons for whom the test is recommended in practice].\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Washington
- court finds that minimal verbal skill is useful and that the test was
directly
related to the requirements of the police training program and that a positive
relationship between the test and training course performance was sufficient to
validate the test wholly aside from its possible relationship to actual
performance
as a police officer. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 More
importantly
- no disparate impact liability for equal protection cluase = must prove bad
motive
under 5{\super th} and 14{\super th}.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 NEA -
decision
to validate against the academic training program rather than job performance
is
specifically endorsed by Davis. Content validity = can\u8217\'92t teach math if
don\u8217\'92t know any math.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Note on
no
scored (186) (Spurlock) - when the job clearly requires a high degree of skill
and the economic and human risk involved in hiring an unqualified applicant are
great, the er bears a corresponding lighter burden to show that his employment
criteria
are job related. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Note on
subjective
evaluation (189) (Scott) - courts are generally more accepting of er\u8217\'92s
cliams that supervisory, managerial or professional jobs require some
attributes
measurable only by subjective judgments. (Watson) managerial positions require
personal qualities that have never been considered amenable to testing.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 E. The
Regulation of Status Discrimination by Unions\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 703(c)
prohibits
discrimination by labor organizations. \u169\'a9(2) limit membership or
employment
opportunity to any individual \u169\'a9(3) cause or attempt to cause er to
discriminate
. Must have 15 members and be recognized as a representative (or seek to be
recognized
) by employer or gov\u8217\'92t.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Goodman -
T7 and 1981 do not permit a union to refuse to file a grievance presented by a
black
person b/c the er looks with disfavor on such complaints.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Note 6
(General
Building) - er should not be liable under 1981 for a union\u8217\'92s
discriminatory
operating of a hiring hall that furnished the er with worker.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 F.
Other
Federal Causes of Action Against status discrimination\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
[Constitution
, reconstruction ear civil rights acts (1981), T7, Immigration Control and
Reform
act, etc]\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Equal
protection
. Sue state under 14{\super th} amendment and Federal gov\u8217\'92t under the 5
{\super th}.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Race is a
suspect classification and thus is subject to strict scrutiny (1) compelling
need
(2) narrowly tailored to meet that need. Gender is subject to intermediate
scrutiny
= important need.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 High Tech
- Sexual orientation is suspect to rational basis scrutiny. To be suspect class
must (1) suffer history of discrimination (2) Immutable and observable
characteristic
(ascribed = can\u8217\'92t change) (3) minority or politically powerless or
that
statutory classification burdens a fundamental right. However, see Lawrence v.
Texas - people have a liberty interest in state not being in bedroom.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Post
Civil
War Civil Rights Acts\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 42 USC
{\f1
\lang1024{{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 167 \\f "Tahoma" \\s 12}{\fldrslt}}}} 1981
-
all have same right to K as white citizens. (doesn\u8217\'92t reach sex,
religion
, age, place of nat origin [might cover citizenship] = only reaches ancestry or
ethnic discrimination) reaches all K (even employment K\u8217\'92s) + all
aspects
of K (making, performance, modification, termination) and thus does not require
the existence of an ee relationship. Reaches discrimination by private sector
er
\u8217\'92s (Runyon). White ee\u8217\'92s can also sue under (Sante Fe). NO CAPS
ON DAMAGES. Damages are only in disparate treatment not impact + title VII
legal
damages are available only if no 1981 action. Can\u8217\'92t sue fed
gov\u8216\'91
t under(Brown)(generally no remedy) + Not separate from 1983 remedy against
state
or local gov\u8217\'92t actors (Jett). Race includes Arabs and Jews. Does not
require exhaustion of administrative procedures at the EEOC or state agencies. 7
{\super th} Cir says that does not apply to employment at will K\u8217\'92s
(Gonzalez
) others have (Spriggs); (Haddle says interference with at-will relations is a
species
of the traditional torts of intentional infliction with contractual relations
and
constitutes an actionable injury under the civil rights conspiracy statute 1985
). \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 42 USC
{\f1
\lang1024{{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 167 \\f "Tahoma" \\s 12}{\fldrslt}}}} 1982
-
all citizens shall have same property rights. Reaches private discrimination
(Jones
)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 42 USC {
\f1\lang1024{{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 167 \\f "Tahoma" \\s 12}{\fldrslt}}}}
1983
- every person who under color of state law, causes any person to be deprived
of
rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution (Federal law),
shall
be liable to the party injured. Allows for injunctive relief and damages
(punitive
) against gov\u8217\'92t officials sued in their personal capacity. (however are
shielded from liability if doesn\u8217\'92t violate clearly established
rights).
Rejects respondeat superior and so action lies against local gov\u8217\'92t
entity
only with respect to actions condoned by official policy or custom (Monell
doctrine
). State governments are insulated from both legal and equitable suits under
1983
by the doctrine of sovereign immunity as embodied in the 11{\super th}
amendment
. However, it may be used to obtain injunctive or declaratory relief and atty
fees
from state officials sued in their official capacity and Money damages for
official
sued in their personal capacities, absent an official immunity defense. However
11{\super th} is no immunity to T7 claims but ADEA claims are barred (Kimel).
Can
\u8217\'92t sue fed gov\u8217\'92t under but might try and sue fed official
under
5{\super th} due process (if can\u8216\'91t sue under T7)..\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Under
every
race discrimination case must consider T7 and 1981 if private er and T7 and
1983
if public er/actor.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Damages:
(
15-100 during 20 calendar weeks) = 50K; (101-200) = 100K; (201-500) = 200K; (501
+) = 300.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Title 6 -
no person shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be subjected
to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Title 9 -
no person shall on the basis of sex be subjected to discrimination under any
educational
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Both
reach
entire institution accepting federal funds [hospital not municipality -
Schroeder
], both have a private right of action (Cannon). May award damages for
intentional
violations (Gaurdians). [Gebser said school not liable for sex harassment under
9 unless put on notice]\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 IRCA -
can
\u8217\'92t intentionally discriminate against someone intending to become a
citizen
b/c they are not a citizen.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
three - Seniority Systems Under T7\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Seniority
rules valued b/c (er\u8217\'92s like b/c promote long term commitments, unions
like b/c limit er discretion and ee competition disputes, workers like b/c
confirms
the worth of past work)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 T7 703(h)
-
bona fide seniority systems are insulated from challenge if they are not the
result
of an intention to discriminate b/c of race, color, religion, sex, or nat
origin
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 B. The
Impact of T7 Remedies on Seniority\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Franks -
706(g) broad equitable discretion to make whole + a sharing of the burden of
past
discrimination is presumptively necessary (ee expectations may be modified)
thus
703(h) does not bar the award of seniority relief. (most will still be less
senior
than would have been absent discrimination). [dissent = not equitable at all =
should just compensate with front pay and thus entire burden rest on
discriminator
].\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Teamsters
- some discrimination may have taken place even though a person didn\u8217\'92t
actually apply and thus cannot limit retroactive seniority to only those who
applied
, but ee must have evidence that would have applied but for discrimination
(actually
wanted job, then must analysis if would have been discriminatorily rejected =
qualified
). \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 706(g) -
interim earnings or amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or
persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay otherwise
allocable
(if got a job the next day with same pay/benefits/seniority then no back pay or
seniority relief) (Ford).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Walters -
usually will not displace incumbent ee unless extraordinary circumstances when a
careful balancing of the equities reveals that absent bump P\u8217\'92s relief
will be inadequate. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C.
Direct
T7 Challenges To Seniority Systems\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Teamsters
- Court upholds seniority system that carry forward the effects of pre-act
discrimination
b/c would upset to many expectations, so long as system not adopted to
discriminate
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Seniority
system bona fide (James ): (1) equally discourages all ee\u8217\'92s from
transferring
seniority units (2) seniority units in same or separate bargaining unit [if
separate
whether this is rational and industry practice] (3) whether system has genesis
in discrimination (4) whether the system was negotiated and has been maintained
free from any illegal purpose. (Swint confirmed test and said not exhaustive
list
and ultimate ? Is whether there was actual intent to discriminate on racial
grounds
on the part of those who negotiated or maintained the system)[actual motive not
just impact]. P has burden to prove seniority sytem is int discriminatory
(Lorance
). If okay under T7 then okay under 1981 (NAACP) and executive order 11246
(contractors
w/ fed gov\u8217\'92t).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Bazemore
- %
raise across the board is not okay if continue to pay blacks less than whites
based
on pre-act discrimination = present pay disparities are present violations of
T7
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Evans -
Must
file with EEOC w/in 180 days of event are complaining of (maybe as long as 300
if state agency files).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Patterson
- the fact that a seniority system has a disparate impact is not alone
sufficient
to invalidate the system, actual inent to discriminate must be proven, applies
even to post act systems. 1991 act makes it clear though that there is no sol
for
challenging present seniority systems.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Cali
Brewers
- 703(h) protects the rules of a seniority system so long as they stay within
the
commonly accepted contours of a seniority system (no edu, ment, phy test or
subjective
critera).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
Four Affirmative Action\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 AA b/c (1
) race-conscious goals may be a necessary means of tracking compliance (2)
eliminate
chilling effect of previous discriminatory environment (3) rectify disparity
between
use and population (4) compensate for general disadvantages (5)
forward-looking
= balance is positive \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 No AA b/c
(1) over broad = compensate many not disadvantaged [instead compensate poor if
a group is overly poor then will get greater % of help] (2) social cost = (a)
entrench
status consciousness (b) backlash \u169\'a9 stigmatize those it means to help (
d) society pays as a whole for less efficient workers.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 B.
Judicially
Ordered Affirmative Action\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Stotts -
no finding of past discrimination + blacks protest when 10% cut would eliminate
90% of blacks, SC hold for city.{\b\par}}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Local 28
-
Court has power to compel race conscious remedy against private er who has
persisted
in race discrimination, even if it helps non-victims. Plan should flexible and
temporary + can\u8217\'92t trample the rights of the majority. (1) equitable
since
precluded in past on race to make include based on race (2) strong
gov\u8217\'92
t interest that judicial orders be obeyed. Not subject to due process scrutiny.
However, race conscious affirmative measures should not be invoked simply to
create
a racially balanced work force = should only be used if necessary to assure
equal
employment opportunities + narrowly tailored. Racial preferences in judicial
remedial
orders must be necessary to the avoidance of future discrimination, not simply
to compensate for past discrimination.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Paradise
-
SC upholds temporary one for one promotion rate of qualified blacks to whites in
police station after a finding of racial discrimination.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C.
Voluntary
AA\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Wygant -
Under 14{\super th} equal protection clause any preference based on race is
subject
to strict scrutiny = (1) must be justified by a compelling gov\u8217\'92t
interest
& (2) means chosen must be narrowly tailored to the achievement of that goal.
Societal
discrimination alone is not sufficient to justify a racial classification =
there
must be a showing of prior discrimination by this specific gov\u8217\'92t
unit).
Though hiring goals may burden some innocent individuals they simply do not
impose
the same kind of injury that layoffs impose. Er must provide evidence that
remedial
action was necessary but ultimate burden remains w/ ee\u8217\'92s to prove aa
program
is unconstitutional. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qj\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Johnson
- valid voluntary aa plan b/c flexible and does not require the hiring of the
women
over the man (P bears burden of showing is invalid plan). P must establish a
prima
facie case that race or sex has been taken into account in an er\u8217\'92s
employment
decision, then er must articulate a nondiscriminatory rational (aa action plan
is)[private er doesn\u8217\'92t have to show have discriminated in past, need
only
point to a conspicuous imbalance in traditionally segregated job= %minorities
in
job compared to % in area labor market (if skilled position then %
Qualified](imbalance
need not be so great as to establish a prima facie case), then burden shifts to
P to prove er\u8217\'92s justification is pretextual and plan is invalid. If
set
aside specific #\u8217\'92s then should be express assurances that program is
temporary
. [Dissent by Scalia - if er\u8217\'92s are free to discriminate through aa
w/out
fear of reverse discrimination suits then failure to engage in reverse
discrimination
is economic folly and arguably a breach of a duty to shareholders whenever
hiring
less capable (though minimally capable ee\u8217\'92s) is cheaper than T7
litigation
] (The irony is that these individuals - predominantly unknown, unaffluent,
unorganized
- suffer this injustice at the hands of a Court fond of thinking itself the
champion
of the politically impotent).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qj\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 It is
still a defense to intentional discrimination under T7 that are doing under
legitimate
AA plan (flexible, temporary, no rigid timetables are quotes).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qj\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 AA may
be different under T7 then under Equal protection clause (14{\super th})\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qj\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qj\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Gender
classifications are subject to intermediate scrutiny = must be closely related
to important gov\u8217\'92t interest & closely tailored to meet that interest.
\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\qj\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Race (
compelling interest/narrowly tailored) Gender (important interest/closely
tailored
)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 However,
under T7 are subject to same scrutiny.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Cleveland
Firefighters - consent orders (b/c entered into voluntarily by the parties) do
not have to be evaluated under same terms as judicially mandated action =
706(g)[
although are judicially enforceable], and that they can provide relief to
non-victims
. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 108 of
1991
(703(n)) - litigated or CONSENT judgments that resolve fed claims of employment
discrimination cannot be challenged in a claim under the constitution of fed
civil
rights laws by a person with actual notice and opportunity to present
objections
or by persons who interest were adequately represented by another person who
challenged
on same legal ground and with a similar facts unless the law has changed.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 D.
Executive
or Congressionally ordered AA\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Executive
Order 11246 requires gov\u8217\'92t contractors to analysis the extent to
which
they use available minority workers and if there is underutilization, to
develop
an appropriate AA plan. (exempt if K\u8217\'92s total less than 10K over a year
).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Adarand -
race classifications used by any gov\u8217\'92t agency (State of Fed), including
CONGRESS are subject to strict scrutiny under equal protection clause. (based
on
skepticism, consistency, & congruence).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
Five\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Some
Special
Issues Associated With Sex Discrimination\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 More sex
based classifications that provide genuine utility than raced based
qualifications
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 B. Sex-
Based Pension Funding: The Problem of Rational Discriminatory Prediction\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Norris -
T7 requires er\u8217\'92s to treat their ee\u8217\'92s as individuals, not as
simply
components of a racial, religious, sexual, or national class. Also even if
true
generalizations about a class cannot justify class-based treatment.
Can\u8217\'92
t defend on ground that can\u8217\'92t find a third party that wouldn\u8217\'92t
discriminate against. Different payout on plan was not based on a factor other
than sex = longevity + didn\u8217\'92t matter that had a choice between other
plans
. Under T7 distinction based on sex is same as race besides for BFOQ and The
Bennett
Amendment (Seniority, merit, measures by quantity or quality of production, or
any other factor other than sex = wouldn\u8217\'92t violate EPA).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C.
Pregnancy
and Fertility\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Gilbert -
although covers all disability besides those involving pregnancy it is
legitimate
b/c there are no risk for which men are protected and women are not. Need to
prove
different values to men and women. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Satty -
denying
accumulated seniority to female ee\u8217\'92s returning from pregnancy leave
violates
703(a)(2). Does not withhold a benefit but imposes a burden. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Pregnancy
Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) rejects specific holding of Gilbert and adds
701
(K):\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Because
of
sex includes pregnancy related reasons + must treat same as other persons not
so
affected but similar in their ability or inability to work. Equality vs.
accommodation
(feminist split). In Cali must grant pregnancy leave even if don\u8216\'91t
grant
any other leave + SC said that T7 does not preempt this state law. (Dry Dock -
can\u8217\'92t provide more pregnancy related benefits to female ee\u8217\'92s
then
to the male ee\u8217\'92s spouses, although no duty to provide to spouse at all
). \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 D. The
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification Defense\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 703(e) -
Not unlawful to make decision based on religion, sex, or national origin in
those
instances where such are a bona fide occupational qualification rs necessary to
the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Authenticity
is a BFOQ.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Dothard -
BFOQ for sex b/c prison guards that are female will get attacked more and thus
endanger
others. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Weeks -
If
women ee is willing to take risk and won\u8217\'92t endanger others then must
let
her take the risk = we have eliminated the paternalism of er\u8217\'92s. Must
show
that all or substantially all of gender cannot perform the job.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Tamiami -
er can satisfy weeks test by showing that (1) it had a cause to believe (factual
basis) that all or substantially all persons in class (age, gender) would be
unable
to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved or (2) er can
establish that class (age, gender) was a legitimate proxy for safety-related
qualifications
by proving that it is impossible or highly impractical to make individualized
assessments
of the qualifications of the class (some members of the class have an unsafe
trait
that cannot be ascertained by independent means).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Boston
Celtics
- Can\u8217\'92t continue to discriminate just b/c would damage economically to
stop.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 7{\super
th
} cir let recruit blacks and Hispanics for boot camp instructors.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 UAW -
intentional
discrimination to shield co from claims due to fetal injury. In order to
qualify
as a BFOQ a job qualification must relate to the essence or the central mission
of the ee\u8217\'92s business. (essence of the business test). The extra cost
of
employing members of one sex does not provide an affirmative T7 defense for a
discriminatory
refusal to hire members of that sex, unless the cost would threaten the
survival
of the er\u8217\'92s business. A malevolent motive does not convert a facially
discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Wilson -
discrimination based on sex is valid only when the essence of the business
operation
would be undermined by not hiring members of one sex exclusively. Customer
preferences
for dealing with one class will generally not be a lawful basis for
er\u8217\'92
s discrimination. No BFOQ for race + for gender need to be either selling sex or
doing for privacy reasons (although eeoc says should only do for reasons of
euthenics
, however, courts have been unreceptive to all male European waiter restaurant)
.
Test is business necessity not business convenience.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 No
discrimination
on sax based grooming codes b/c impose roughly the same aggregate burden on
women
and men.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 E.
Sexual
Harassment\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Harris -
Conduct to be sexual harrasment must be (1) severe & (2) pervasive. Must be
objectively
and subjectively offensive. Need only be severe enough to alter the working
environment
to the detriment of the victim. Severe or pervasive enough to create an
objectively
hostile or abusive work environment. Thick skinned is double edge sword = er
and
ee\u8217\'92s not on notice (dig upwards).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Oncale -
discrimination because of sex by one of same sex is still actionable. When the
workplace
is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is
sufficiently
severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victims employment and
create
an abusive working environment. T7 does not require asexuality in the
workplace
. Surrounding circumstances ( expectations, relationships).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (1) QPQ (
quid pro que) - sex in exchange for work/work benefits\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (2)
Hostile
environment: (a) sex based = harassment achieved through sexual means (b)
Gender
based harassment = harassment b/c didn\u8217\'92t want women in this job.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Faragher
-
An er is subject to vicarious liability to a victimized ee for an actionable
hostile
environment created by a supervisor with authority over the ee. When no
tangible
employment action has been taken, a defending er may raise an affirmative
defense
to liability or damages that (1) er exercised rs care to prevent and correct
promptly
any sexually harassing behavior, & (2) that the P ee unrs failed to take
advantage
of any prevenative or corrective opportunities provided by the er or to avoid
harm
otherwise. She also brought 1983 action. Big er\u8217\'92s will need a formal
policy
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\trowd\trgaph180
\trrh666\trleft-180\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx2070\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx6570\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx8820\pard\intbl\intbl\cell\pard\pard\intbl
\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 Er knew + no response\cell\pard\pard\intbl
\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 Er knew +
corrected\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar
\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 Er didn\u8217\'92t
know\cell\pard\pard\intbl\row\pard\trowd
\trgaph180\trrh570\trleft-180\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx2070\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx6570\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20
\clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx8820\pard\intbl\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar
\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 Harass by
supervisor\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar\nooverflow
\sl240\slmult1 Liability based on
negligence\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar\nooverflow
\sl240\slmult1 No
liability\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1
Vicarious unless establish aff
defense\cell\pard\pard\intbl\row\pard\trowd\trgaph180
\trrh949\trleft-180\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx2070\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx4320\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx6570\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrl
\brdrs\brdrw20\clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw20\cellx8820\pard\intbl\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar
\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 Harass by co-worker or
customer\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar
\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 Liability based on
negligence\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar
\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1 No
liability\cell\pard\pard\intbl\nowidctlpar\nooverflow
\sl240\slmult1 No vicarious liability b/c not
agent.\cell\pard\pard\intbl\row\pard
\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 T7
usually
interpreted to not allow to sue supervisor individually but should sue under
state
law claim = IIED + sexual battery.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Kolstad -
can get punitives in T7 and ADA but are limited to cases in which er has engaged
in intentional discrimination and has done so with malice or with reckless
indifference
to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual (can\u8216\'91t
get
against a gov\u8216\'91t). The terms malice and reckless indifference pertain
to
the er\u8217\'92s knowledge that it may be acting I violation of federal law,
not
its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination. In the punitive damages
context
an er may not be vicariously liable for the discriminatory employment decisions
of managerial agents where these decisions are contrary to the er\u8217\'92s
good
faith efforts to comply with T7.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 F.
Compensation
Disparities\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 A.
Equal
Pay Act{\b0 \par}}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Corning -
for EPA to function, jobs in question must be very, very similar + at same
establishment
(same facility). Damages = 2x back pay (good faith defense to these liquidated
damages though that gives judge discretion of whether to award) and atty fees.
Must
show that er pays different wages to ee\u8217\'92s of the opposite sex for
equal
work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and
responsibility
, and which are performed under similar working conditions (burden on P to
show).
Four exceptions [affirmative defenses]: (1) a seniority system (2) a merit
system
(3) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production (4) a
differential based on any other factor than sex. (Burden on D to show). Co had
to equalize the base pay of female day inspectors with that of male night
inspectors
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 T7 vs.
EPA
- Under EPA class action must be opt in. EPA covers all er\u8217\'92s affecting
interstate commerce while T7 covers er\u8217\'92s w/ 15 or more ee\u8217\'92s.
EPA has 2 year SOL (3 year if willful) + don\u8217\'92t have to file with EEOC
while
T7 give 180 to file w/ EEOC. T7 get capped comp and punitive while EPA get 2x
back
pay + get atty fees under both. Under EPA can only equalize wages by topping up
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Kouba -
Factor
other than sex from EPA adopted to T7 is an aff defense on which er bears
burden
. The factor other than sex must be some factor that relates to business needs =
it can not be unrelated to business. Footnote 7 refused to rule on whether
market
demand can justify a wage differential. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Comparable
worth - classify jobs by value of a job to er and make pay based on value.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Gunther -
T7 forbids more gender based pay discrimination than does EPA. Bennent amendment
only gives to er benefit of AFF defense in EPA and thus does not incorporate
skill
, effort, responsibility, and working conditions requirements. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 American
Federation - court rules against comparable worth and states that the free
market
system is not a suspect factor. Competitive Market forces is an assessment too
multifaceted to be appropriate for disparate impact analysis, it does not
constitute
a single practice that suffices to support a disparate impact cliam. No intent
to discriminate either b/c state did not create the market disparity.
Circumstantial
statistical evidence alone is insufficient to establish an inference of
discriminatory
intent.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Weiler -
do comparable worth study of male jobs and then reward females equally for same
qualities reward males. Marriage gap (married women earn the least)[better day
care
and more flexible hours] and occupation gap (disproportionably in low paying
jobs
). Would increasing wages just encourage women to stay in these positions. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 FMLA -
requires
er\u8217\'92s to grant ee\u8217\'92s (who have worked 12 months and 1250 hours
in past year at site were er has 50 ee\u8217\'92s w/in 75 mile radius) a total
of
12 work weeks of unpaid leave (without loss of any benefit) during any 12 month
period for: (1) care for child born in last year (2) care for a child adopted
in
past year (3) care for a spouse, child, or parent with a serious health
condition
(4) a serious health condition that makes the ee unable to perform the
functions
of his or her position.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
Six\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 The
Regulation
of Age Discrimination\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 A.
Introduction
\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Reasons
for
: (1) Prejudice (stereotyping) (2) Statistical Discrimination (lawful and lawful
= slow increase in sudden onset illness + not efficient to try and segregate
those
that can perform there job efficiently and those that can\u8217\'92t) (3) Er
Opportunism
(pay younger less than worth based on assumption that will pay more than worth
later on. ADEA makes er factor in cost of litigation in decision to fire.)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 ADEA
Statutory
Scheme - ADEA applies to er\u8217\'92s affecting commerce having at least
twenty
ee\u8217\'92s for each working day for twenty weeks in current or preceding
year
. Covers those over 40 and includes unions and employment agencies. Substantive
law of T7 combined with remedial provisions of FLSA. Can award reinstatement or
front pay + can seek liquidated damages = to damages, however can only recover
these
extra damages in cases of willful violations. Willful requires that er acted in
knowing or reckless disregard of ADEA requirements (Thurston). There is no
private
right of actions under ADEA against state and local governments although EEOC
may
bring. (Kimel).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 B.
Disparate
Treatment (Applicability of T7 Standards of Proof)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
O\u8217\'92
Connor - The fact that one person in the protected class has lost out to another
person in the protected class is irrelevant, so long as he has lost out b/c of
his age. Prima facie case requires evidence adequate to create inference that
employment
decision was based on illegal discriminatory criterion, such an inference can
not
be drawn from the replacement of one worker with another worker who is
insignificantly
younger. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Blistein
-
If claim is that should have retained must show that retained persons performing
at lower level than P.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Miller -
Under ADEA age must: (1) play a role in the decision making process (be a factor
) & (2) have a determinative effect on the outcome of that process ( would not
have
been fired if were 20 years younger). Need not be sole cause though. Show
but-for
causation. If the ee can show the violation of the ADEA was willful (that er
either
knew or showed reckless disregard of whether its conduct was prohibited by the
statute [test for liquidated damages]) then need not also show that age was a
predominant
rather than a determinative factor. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Mixed
motives
cases are only cases in which the P\u8217\'92s evidence of discrimination is
sufficiently
direct to shift the burden of proof to the er that it would have taken the same
action in the absence of the discriminatory motive (In this RARE case then P id
entitled to instruction that he need only show that the forbidden motive played
a role & must also instruct that D can avoid liability by proving it would have
taken same action despite bad motive). All other cases are pretext cases and P
must prove (1) & (2).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 ADEA
protects
the imperfect older worker from being treated worse than the imperfect younger
worker. Courts generally continue to apply Price Waterhouse framework instead of
Section 107 of 1991 act.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C.
Disparate
Treatment (Age as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Western -
The job qualifications the er ivokes to justify his discrimination must be rs
necessary
to the essence of his business. Age qualifications must be rs necessary not
just
convenient + er can show by showing (1) it had a cause to believe (factual
basis
) that all or substantially all persons in class (age) would be unable to
perform
safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved or (2) er can establish
that
class (age) was a legitimate proxy for safety-related qualifications by proving
that it is impossible or highly impractical to make individualized assessments
of the qualifications of the class (some members of the class have an unsafe
trait
that cannot be ascertained by independent means). {\b\par}}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Rs
necessity
not rs. However in cases involving safty it is rs necessary to err on the side
of caution in close cases.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Exception
for firefighters and police (at least 55).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Greyhound
- given consequences of wreck it is okay to use age + experience to determine
who
will be the safest drivers.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Connelly
-
may look like age discriminatin but is really due to other factors = Peter
principle
(most senior ee\u8217\'92s w/in job level tend to be those whose career has
peeked
. Also easier to move up the lower an ee is. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 ADEA uses
opt in for class action just like FLSA (EPA).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 D.
Disparate
Impact\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Biggins -
violation of ERISA to fire ee to keep from vesting in pension plan, but
discrimination
based on length of service is not discrimination based on age (can take account
of one while ignoring the other) + (not a case where vesting occurs based on
age
). When the er\u8217\'92s decision is wholly motivated by factors other than age
, the problem of inaccurate and stigmatizing stereotypes disappears. This is
true
even if the motivating factor is correlated with age, as pension status usually
is. Never thought \u8220\'93older ee\u8217\'92s are likely to ___.\u8221\'94
Pre
-Biggins some circuits held there was a disparate impact claim b/c has disparate
impact language from 703(a)(2) but this was adopted before Griggs. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Geller
(Pre
-Biggins) - find for P on disparate impact basis since they didn\u8217\'92t hire
b/c of length of service.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Ellis
(Post
-Biggens) - No disparate impact claim under adea. Lifted language for adea from
64 act but did not amend in 91 when amended T7 (although there was no comparable
wards cove adea decision).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Section
623
(f) provides authorization of actions based on \u8220\'93factors other than
age\u8221
\'94 similar to section 206(d)(1) of EPA which the sc in Guther interpreted to
preclude
disparate impact claim.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 However
623
(a)(2) - to limit, segregate, or classify his ee\u8217\'92s in any way which
would
deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or
otherwise
adversely affect his status as an ee, b/c of an ee\u8217\'92s age.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Public
policy
- so many decisions in the market are linked to age (length of service, pay)
combined
with ease of prima facie case and subsequent burden shifting may lead to
expensive
litigation.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 OWBPA -
overturns
Betts. Burden of proof is on er to show justification for discriminatory plan.
Benefits under a plan must be equal in value to older as are to younger workers.
\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Age based
mandatory retirements are now prohibited = No age where can force to retire
beside
:\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 1) BFOQ (
authenticity)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 2) Law
enforcement
officers and firefighters (55)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 3) Used
to
be tenured professor\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 4) policy
making executives (very top guy) for at least 2 years + is now at least (65) +
attainment of vesting of retirement benefits of at least 44K.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Many
people
don\u8217\'92t fall under adea and thus mandatory retirement is okay (elected
or appointed officials + judges).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Can\u8217
\'92t give short window of retirement 55-58 where the deal is sweeter = must
keep
window open. Flexibility on how credit service = can say vest at so many years
and cap but can\u8217\'92t take anything away.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Voluntary
early retirement plans are exempt from the equal cost/equal benefit principle
in
OWBPA if are not based on arbitrary age distinctions. Our sixth circuit in
Lyon
said er can encourage younger ee\u8217\'92s to retire by granting them benefits
through the possibility of granting them more years of service. However some
other
courts have struck down plans that offer greater benefits to younger
workers.\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Managers
report at S-12 : can\u8217\'92t exclude older worker from early retirement
incintive
plan b/c think will retire anyway but can have small window for those who are (
55) to retire in and if do so will grant 5 more years of service.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Henn -
early
retirement is not a discharge if is voluntary = must have had choice to keep
working
. Voluntary (did person get info on what would happen if say no,
time/complexity
, misconduct/fraud, choice to say no). The fact that reduction in force reduces
ages of worker does not support an inference of age discrimination in particular
ee + fact that er communicates risk of job does not negate voluntary decision.
Voluntary or coerced. Retire or get fired. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Widow
opportunities
are okay so long as given time to decide however choice between not working w/
benfits and not working w/out benefits is no choice.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Test is
whether
rs person would have concluded that there was no choice but to accept the offer
. (Paolillo).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 P in adea
early retirement case must show that retirement was not voluntary + age was a
factor
+ played a dexterities role + waiver is invalid (if signed a waiver).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 7
conditions
for waiver: 1) must be part of an intelligible written agreement 2)
specifically
refer to waiver of adea rights 3) can\u8217\'92t waive rights arising after
date
of agreement 4) must be in exchange for consideration above which already
entitled
to 5) advised in writing to consult atty before signing 6) at least 21 days to
consider 7) 7 days to revoke\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 If offer
to a group (2) then must show who offered to and who didn\u8217\'92t + must give
45 days instead of 21.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Burden of
voluntary is on er.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Waiver
must
be knowing and voluntary = ee must know scope of offer + consequences of
refusing
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 There is
no prospective waiver of T7 rights (Gardner-Denver).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
7 - Disability Discrimination\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Will the
cost of accommodation be repaid to society in the long run by enabling more
citizens
to reach their full productive potential. Should we give tax brake to ind er so
don\u8217\'92t to have ind bear cost.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 ADA is a
taking\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 All
er\u8217
\'92s subject to T7 cannot discriminate against any \u8220\'93qualified
individual
with a disability\u8221\'94 (qiwad) which means an individual with a disability
who, w/ or w/out rs accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the
employment
position (almost all of the job) that such ind holds or desires\u8221\'94 +
must
make rs accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of an
otherwise
qualified individual with a disability. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Undue
hardship
significant difficulty or expense in providing accommodation in light of
factors
:\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 1).
Nature
and net cost of accommodation (tax brakes + outside help)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 2).
Overall
financial resources of facility involved\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 3).
Overall
financial resources of the covered entity\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (4 = type
operation; 5=impact of accommodation on facility).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Rs
accommodation
:\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 1) modify
application process\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 2) modify
work environment\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Bragdon -
T2 public accommodation. Disability:\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (A) a
physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities
of such an individual (caring for self, working, manual task, walking, talking,
learning, seeing, etc)\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (B) a
record
of such impairment; or\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (C) being
regarded as having such an impairment.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 HIV is a
disability b/c limit major life activity of reproduction = addresses
substantially
limitations not utter inabilities.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Rehabilitation
act of 1973 covers fed gov\u8217\'92t ADA does not. RA applies to any program
receiving
DIRECT fed financial assistance (not just program itself) + can bring private
action unless fed ee. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Branch -
temporary disabilities usually not covered. EEOC say predisposition to illness
not
covered as impairment.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Whether
condition
is voluntary . Cook (1{\super st} Cir) - distinguished past voluntary causation
from future power to control stating that obesity may reflect a metabolic
dysfunction
that cannot be controlled. But see 48 Hastings L. J. 75 (stating whether
condition
is voluntary should be a factor in whether accommodation is rs).104(a) excludes
DRUG users who are PRESENTLY (recently) ILLEGALLY USING and not in recovery pro
gram. Does not exclude even current alcoholics but can hold to same standards
as
hold other ee\u8217\'92s).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Sutton -
Court rejects EEOC guidelines that persons should be judged in their uncorrected
state based on quote of 43 million in statute. Dissent states that it makes no
sence to include those in class who used to be disabled but are now recovered
and
not include Sutton sisters. P\u8217\'92s did not argue that use of corrective
lenses
in itself demonstrates a substantially limiting impairment + due not argue that
are regarded as substantially limited in major life activity of seeing.
Er\u8217
\'92s are free to favor some physical attributes as long as doesn\u8217\'92t
make
a decision based on an impairment (real or imagined). If major life activity is
working then must show are unable to work in a broad class of jobs.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 UPS -
they
can keep me from doing my job b/c I am not disabled (can\u8217\'92t drive b/c
can
\u8217\'92t get commercial license b/c of blood pressure, but not disabled b/c
can
take medication for blood pressure).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Albertsons
- lost sight in one eye but ct says not disabled b/c has learned to turn head (
mitigating measures taken by the body itself).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 ADA
precludes
many psychological disorders in 511(b) = gambling, kleptomania, pyromania,
sexual
, crazyness from drugs (psychoactive substance use disorders).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C. Duty
of RA\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Make ra
by
making facilities accessible or by job restructuring unless can show would be
an
undue hardship which will be judged on a subjective sliding scale based on
resources
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Vande
Zande
- RA must meet requirement of proportionality = cost of accommodating must have
rs relation to benefit to be gained. EE must show that accommodation is rs.
Case
decided under reasonable not undue. ? Does er ever let people w/ similar jobs
work
at home?. What er tolerates form other ee\u8217\'92s disabled or not goes a
long
way towards proving rs = what you normally do is per se rs. Er has no duty to
expend
even modest amounts to bring about an absolute identity in working conditions =
ra is satisfied when er does what is necessary to enable to work in rs
comfort.\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Midland
Brake
- Er only has a duty to ra once notified by ee of disability and request for ra
(other job if express a desire to stay w/ the company). Disclosure - quiwad? -
good faith interactive process (even if er doesn\u8217\'92t ee will still have
to
show ra possible and would have worked) - accommodate to present job? - vacant
(
or expect to be in near future) jobs qualified to do? (don\u8217\'92t have to
move
anyone or upset rs expectation of a seniority system (Barnett) not rs to upset
rs expectation + [if union probably can\u8217\'92t under collective bargaining
agreement
] = might have to offer P entry level, however ee may show exceptional
circumstances
) - qualified w/ ra? - undue hardship? . \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Is Smith
really disabled = temp = specific chemical.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Er only
has
to offer A ra = doesn\u8217\'92t have to make exact ra ee wants. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Legislative
history says that er does not have to modify essential functions of the job.
\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Does er
treat
everyone who can\u8217\'92t do their job in the same way.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 42 U.S.C.
1981a(a)(3) - no damages when covered entity demonstrates good faith efforts to
make ra.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Hedberg (
7{\super th}) - er can discharge ee b/c of behavior caused by disability if er
did
not know of disability.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Er need
only
search for job that is similar in pay and responsibility = doesn\u8217\'92t
have
to promote. EEOC say have to search for lower jobs also.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Pursuit
of
social security benefits for total disability does not estop since can plead in
the alternative but must give a sufficient explanation for - Cleveland.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Ennis (4{
\super th}) - P said fired for adopting disabled child. Ct said to raise prima
facie
case must show:\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 1) member
protected class 2) discharge 3) was meeting er\u8217\'92s rs expectations
4)circumstances
that raise a rs inference of unlawful discrimination (discharge itself is not
enough
). \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Circuit
split
on whether disability must be contributing or sole cause. (4{\super th} -
motivating
) (11{\super th} - but-for) (7{\super th}- sole cause) 11{\super th} stated that
congress knew of sc price interpretation that did not require sole causation
when
it enacted ada.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 103 gives
er defense for even overt int discrimination if test that deny\u8217\'92s job
is
job-related and a business necessity and cant perform job w/ ra + if individual
would pose a direct threat (significant risk) to health or safty of other
individual
in the work place that cannot be eliminated by a ra.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Bragdon -
Can deny ra if pose a direct threat to others but not to P herself (payphone,
battery
, prison guard). If can\u8217\'92t do job safely though then probably not a
quiwad
b/c of wc expense and desire to not see two fingered hand. Risk must be
significant
(subjective and objective).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Direct
threat
means significant risk that can\u8217\'92t be eliminated. Significant depends
on
: [1]Nature of risk (how transmitted) [2] duration of risk (how long infectious)
[
3] severity of the risk [4] probability will be transmitted. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Er may
not
ask ?\u8217\'92s that would tend to disclose a disability but can ask if can
perform
essential functions of the job. Can\u8217\'92t ask if treated for cancer but
can
ask how many days have missed. After offer job can make submit to medical
examination
as condition of employment that make all new ee\u8217\'92s submit to. Testing
for
illegal drugs is not a medical examination.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 There is
a disparate impact in section 6 but most cases turn on denial of ra.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 EEOC says
can limit what cover under insurance so long as not disease specific (eye-care)
or cap benefits for any physical condition or blanket preexisting clause but
cannot
single out particular disability or a discrete group of disabilities. 6{\super
th
} in Parker said can provide longer benefits for physical than mental.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Preamble
of ADA markets it as a cost saver pointing to billions of dollars in
unnecessary
expenses resulting from dependency and nonproductivity.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Under
FMLA
larger er\u8217\'92s are required to grant 12 weeks unpaid leave to disabled or
to care for disabled family member if disabled is regular worker. P\u8217\'92s
have been wining fmla cases when fired after making disclosure but before
requesting
accommodation.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 RA =
qualified
claim to special treatment.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chaper
8 - Religious Discrimination \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 T7
defines
discrimination on account of religion to include \u8220\'93 all aspects of
religious
observance and practice, as well as belief\u8221\'94 and requires a RA of
ee\u8217
\'92s or applicant\u8217\'92s religious observance or practice.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Hardison
-
To require er to bear more than a de minimis cost in order to RA P is an undue
hardship
. Extent of duty to RA is much lower than ADA b/c courts fear religious
favoritism
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Philbrook
- Once er offers RA it has no duty to demonstrate the hardship of ee\u8217\'92s
alternatives. unpaid leave is not a ra when paid leave is provided for all
purposes
except religious ones. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
Philadelphia
(3{\super rd}) - held that the state\u8217\'92s interest in preserving
religious
neutrality in the public classroom justified a religious garb prohibition.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Wilson (8
{\super th}) - er\u8217\'92s do not have to abide religious expression that
injures
working relationships or otherwise affect productivity.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 C. The
Constitutional Setting\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Thornton
-
SC says can\u8217\'92t pass law that outlaws making ee work on his Sabbath b/c
would
benefit certain religious groups. To pass constitutional muster under Lemon a
statute must not only have a secular purpose and not foster excessive
entanglement
of gov\u8217\'92t w/ religion, its primary effect must not advance or inhibit
religion.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Note 3 on
625 list three cases were ee\u8217\'92s fired for refusing to work under
conditions
forbidden by his religion in all three cases sc reversed denial of unemployment
benefits. But in Oregon v. Smith didn\u8217\'92t for drug counselor b/c said
was
illegal activity.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 702(a) of
T7 says statute does not apply to a religious corp, association, edu
institution
, or society w/ respect to the employment of individuals of a particular
religion
to perform work connected w/ the carrying on by such corporation, association,
educational institution, or society of its activities.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Amos -
said
lds could hire lds to run nonprofit gym. Tough case of pregnant Cincinnati
teacher
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
nine - Expression and Association Protected by 1{\super st}.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Shelton -
invalidated statute that required teachers to disclose organizational
affiliations
based on freedom to associate.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Cramp -
invalidated
loyalty oaths b/c excessively vague.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Pickering
- ct found that teacher\u8217\'92s statements had not impaired intimate working
relationships or revealed necessary confidences and that issue was of public
concern
. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Jefferson
(7{\super th}) - could discharge probation officer for calling talk show and
criticizing
criminal justice system b/c of effect on officer\u8217\'92s
probationers\u8217\'92
confidence in the system.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Solomon (
6{\super th}) - public interest in disclosure of corruption outweighs the
state\u8217
\'92s interest in confidentiality.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Doyle -
in
mixed motive could prove as aff defense that would have taken same action
regardless
of speech.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Givhan -
internal speech is also protected if addresses a matter of public concern.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Connick -
balancing test [1] worthy of public concern & [2] given time, place, and manner
did it cause harm to er. Insubordinate to refuse legitimate job assignment (work
now and grieve later). Involved other members of the office in the dispute (but
see NLRA in industrial setting).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 We hold
only
that when a public ee speaks not as a citizen upon matters of public concern,
but
instead as an ee upon matters only of personal interest, absent the most
unusual
circumstances, fed court is not the place to review personal decision by public
agency in response to.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Rankin -
court says I hope the get Reagan b/c cutting food stamps and Medicare is
protected
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 (3{\super
rd}) says doesn\u8217\'92t matter if matter if ee has personal stake in matter
of
public concern (7{\super th}) says internal speech on matter of public concern
is not protected b/c ee\u8217\'92s concern was private not public.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
McLaughlin
- have right of association. Those who join an organization but do not share in
its unlawful purposes and who do not participate in its unlawful activities
surely
pose no threat, either as a citizen or as public ee.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Burns -
can
\u8217\'92t just sweep out of work low level ee\u8217\'92s b/c of a change of
political
control = can get rid of policy makers but not clerical workers.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Lyng -
Does
not violate right to associate to withhold foodstamps from those on strike.\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Chapter
ten - Retaliation against assertion of ee\u8217\'92s Rights\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 704(a) of
T7 prohibits retaliation against those who oppose practices made unlawful by
this
title.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Green -
unlawful
conduct is a defense for er so long as has treated all unlawful conduct the
same
.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Mattern -
retaliation claim has 3 elements: [1] ee engaged in activity protected [2] er
took
adverse employment action against ee [3] a causal connection exist between [1]
& [
2]. Ultimate employment decisions (adverse employment actions) include acts such
as hiring, granting leave, discharging, promoting, and compensation, not
interlocutory
decisions or vague harms. Dissent says hostile work environment (harris -
actionable
sh although not to level of constructive discharge) is an adverse employment
action
. This circuit construes more narrow than other + says 703 and 704 must be view
separate while dissent says should logically be viewed together.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Cisneros
(
7{\super th}) - harassing conduct merely continuation of conduct complained of
in
originall complaint is not retaliation.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Most
courts
take broad view of what is protected (collection of info to complain or
internal
complaints) + some even protect in connection w/ er\u8217\'92s internal
investigation
(11{\super th}).\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 EEOC
say
filing of a charge is absolutely privileged even if filed in bad faith.
Northern
District of Alabama says no absolute privilege. \par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\b\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Robinson
-
former ee\u8217\'92s are also covered = rehire (Can revive time-barred
claim).\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 No
affirmative
defense (business necessity justification) for retaliation.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Hochstadt
- court finds P went beyond bounds of protected protest. EE must balance
opposition
to er (right to express grievances) & conforming to good performance of job for
er (er\u8216\'91s right to run its business). Can\u8217\'92t be disruptive for
the sake of being disruptive = can\u8216\'91t inflict needless economic hardship
on er. Protest can\u8217\'92t be excessive or will lose protection = must be rs
. 704(a) does not provide a license to complain at any and all times. Although
congress
did provide for an opposition clause which protects some measure of
oppositional
activity outside the formal processes of T7.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\ul\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\ul\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\ul\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\ul\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\ul\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28
NOTES\par
}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Executive
Order 11246 - extends beyond discrimination and commands all federal
contractors
to take affirmative action to endure the use of qualified minorities
workers.{\ul
\par}}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 CRA was a
decision to terminate systematic preference for white males.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Need 15
ee
during 20 weeks for ADA to apply.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28 Always
look
for acceptable alternative.\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
\pard\nowidctlpar\nooverflow\sl240\slmult1{\f0\lang1033\fs24\kerning28\par}
}
