Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

D.C. Circuit aggravates Title VII split; for punitives, plaintiff must show there's egregriousness

Article Abstract:

Conflicting rulings on the standard for imposing punitive damages under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act were issued by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit in Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n and the US Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit in Luciano v. Olsten Corp. The Luciano case ruled that successfully proving intentional sex discrimination was enough for a jury trial against her former employer. The Kolstad court ruled against the plaintiff, stating that there had to be proof of egregiousness as well.

Author: Coyle, Marcia
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1998
Exemplary damages, Punitive damages, Sex discrimination

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The Court's new view: colorblind? Rulings put heavy burden on racial classifications

Article Abstract:

Three race-related decisions by the US Supreme Court will define its 1994-5 term, say both supporters and foes of the decisions. The rulings in Miller v Johnson, Adarand Constructors v Pena, and Missouri v Jenkins all narrow the government's ability to use racial classifications, generally on the theory that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause applies to individuals, not groups. Backers say the court recognizes that discrimination cannot be ended by discriminating, while opponents claim racism will persist.

Author: Coyle, Marcia
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995
Social policy, United States. Supreme Court, School integration, Election districts

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Is a kinder and gentler strict scrutiny in the cards?

Article Abstract:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's analysis of strict scrutiny in the US Supreme Court's ruling on Adarand Constructors v Pena draws a fine line dividing disputants over the 'strict scrutiny' standard for race-based programs. Supporters of those programs fear O'Connor's standard, generally considered very high, will effectively kill federal affirmative action, though many add that supporting evidence for the programs abounds. The ruling in Missouri v Jenkins, on judicial oversight of school districts, is also analyzed.

Author: Coyle, Marcia
Publisher: ALM Media, Inc.
Publication Name: The National Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0162-7325
Year: 1995

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Cases, Employment discrimination, Affirmative action, Race discrimination
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: How firms keep their associates on the job; innovative programs slow the pace of lawyer attrition. Economic tide fails to lift associates; overall partnership offers at largest firms sink despite better business climate
  • Abstracts: A new idea in software protection; a 'Manifesto' calls for a unique law that's neither copyright nor patent. Congress considers sweeping revisions in copyright law
  • Abstracts: Hurdle cleared for tobacco suit; with class action OK, plaintiffs' lawyers promise massive effort, cooperation
  • Abstracts: The lawyer turned peacemaker. Jacoby takes on Meyers: founder of retail law firm sues partners, claiming their attempt to oust him caused emotional distress
  • Abstracts: Culottes flap tests fabric of court: public defender escalates feud by goading get-tough judge over shorts policy
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.