The demise of circumstantial proof in employment discrimination litigation: St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, pretext, and the "personality" excuse
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's ruling in the 1993 St. Mary's Honor Center case required employment discrimination plaintiffs to prove Title VII violations by demonstrating employers' pretextual designs to hide discrimination. The decision reshaped the traditional McDonnell-Douglas framework applicable in these cases, which had required plaintiffs to offer circumstantial evidence or inference of discriminatory intent. The decision could hamper justice for victims of discrimination because it skews fact-finding and requires plaintiffs to discredit virtually every explanation offered by employers to justify alleged discrimination.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1997
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
The constitutionalization of employment rights: a comparative view
Article Abstract:
Those who believe that workers' rights can only be fully enforced by making protections against abusive labor practices a constitutional right overlook the value in using the legislative process to develop and enforce labor standards acceptable to both employers and employees. A comparison of US labor laws and political processes with those of Germany and the UK shows that employers' and workers' interests can be successfully balanced without having to enshrine labor protections in a constitution. The comparison also shows that employees' rights can be successfully enforced without regular judicial intervention.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1993
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Voices from the cubicle: protecting and encouraging private employee speech in the post-industrial workplace
Article Abstract:
A federal law protecting all manner of non-disruptive or disloyal private employee speech would empower employees and encourage the constructive worker participation which advances employer interests. As it is, employees' increased self-censorship, their decline in union membership, and the greater use of electronic employee monitoring all point to a severe chill on private employee expression.
Publication Name: Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Subject: Law
ISSN: 1067-7666
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Testing the limits of judicial discretion in Chapter 11: the doctrine of necessity and third party releases. Trading claims in Chapter 11 cases: legal issues confronting the postpetition investor
- Abstracts: Five years after Aerospatiale: rethinking discovery abroad in civil and commercial litigation under the Hague Evidence Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Abstracts: Commercial power and competitor litigation. Choice of law in tort in domestic and international litigation. The court-room economist in Australian antitrust litigation: an underutilised resource?
- Abstracts: The 'reasonable woman' standard: implications for assessing the severity of sexual harassment and the adequacy of employer response
- Abstracts: The 'reasonable woman' standard: implications for assessing the severity of sexual harassment and the adequacy of employer response. part 2