|Abstract||Multiple claims are a fixture of employment discrimination litigation today. It is common if not ubiquitous for opinions to begin with a version of the following litany: plaintiff brings this action under Title VII and the ADEA for race, age and gender discrimination. EEOC statistics show the exponential growth of multiple claims, in part because its intake procedures lead claimants to describe their multiple identities, at a time when they have little basis upon which to parse a specific category of bias. But increased diversity in workplace demographics suggests that frequently, disparate treatment in fact may be rooted in intersectional or complex bias: while stereotypes for women have somewhat dissipated, those for older African-American women still hold sway. Complex bias provides a counter-narrative to the currently in vogue characterization of workplace discrimination as subtle or unconscious. Despite the common sense notion that the more different a worker is, the most likely she will encounter bias, empirical evidence shows that multiple claims - which may account for more than 50% of federal court discrimination actions - have even less chance of success than single claims. A sample of summary judgment decisions on multiple claims reveals that employers prevail at a rate of 96%, as compared to 73% for employment discrimination claims generally. Multiple claims suffer from the failure of courts and intersectional legal scholars to confront the difficulties inherent in proving discrimination using narrowly circumscribed pretext analysis. Applying sex-plus concepts does not address the underlying paradox inherent in the proof of these cases: the more complex the claimant's identity, the wider the evidentiary net must be cast to find relevant comparative, statistical and anecdotal evidence. Overcoming the courts' reluctance to follow this direction requires the development and introduction of social science research that delineates the nuanced stereotypes faced by complex claimants.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
C. Daryl Cameron, Joshua Knobe & B. Keith Payne (2010). Do Theories of Implicit Race Bias Change Moral Judgments? Social Justice Research 23:272-289.
Kasper Lippert-rasmussen (2006). The Badness of Discrimination. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (2):167 - 185.
Mark V. Roehling (2002). Weight Discrimination in the American Workplace: Ethical Issues and Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 40 (2):177 - 189.
Joseph Seiner, The Trouble with Twombly: A Proposed Pleading Standard for Employment Discrimination Cases.
David S. Cohen, Limiting Gebser: Institutional Liability for Non-Harassment Sex Discrimination Under Title IX.
Geert Demuijnck (2009). Non-Discrimination in Human Resources Management as a Moral Obligation. Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1):83 - 101.
I. V. Pfutzenreuter, The Curious Case of Disparate Impact Under the Adea: Reversing the Theory's Development Into Obsolescence.
Nancy B. Kurland (2001). The Impact of Legal Age Discrimination on Women in Professional Occupations. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (2):331-348.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads5 ( #160,239 of 549,014 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?