11/17/2009 Women and the Law Case: Griggs v Duke Power. Title 7: comes out of 14th amendment, adds gender. Prohibits discrimination on basis of gender, race etc in employment and education. Burden of proof: evidence. Burden of persuasion ? easy to see in Title 7 cases. New employment criteria coincident with Title 7 Act going into effect. The company tries to defend itself by starting these criteria whereas previously people had gotten hired without them. Duke Power was hiring uneducated workers, who had to pass certain courses to be hired. The Supreme Court was offended by this ? Duke Power loses the case because the tests were not relevant to the type of work they were doing, i.e. manual labor (read Appendix of Title 7). It does not prohibit tests as long as they are related to the job. Measure the person for the job, not in the abstract. EEOC: equal employment opportunity commission. Enforcement agency ? they are empowered to review an employer?s files to look at the allegation. Issue a ?right to sue? letter if they find evidence of violation of Title 7. Can lead to a settlement if they employee has more than a colorable claim. EEOC usually takes on class action suits: similarly offended plaintiffs against a company/employer that have similar claims Court issues a writ of certiorari ? pg 553. Question is whether an employer is allowed under Title 7 to require a standardized test to hire someone when the test is not relevant to the actual work. It disqualified African-Americans more than white employees. District court said that prior discrimination cannot be corrected by Title 7. This is not true. Expost facto laws operate on what happened in the past. Prospective laws: enacted in the future. The objective of Congress in enactment of Title 7: to achieve equality in employment opportunities and remove barrier against non-white employees in the past. Grandfather clause: way of disenfranchising people of color from owning land. Invidious classification: completely baseless and mean-spirited. Business necessity: has to be essential to the operation of the business, related to the product itself. It operates when a company claims a special need. The company?s lack of discriminatory intent. (pg 556 & 558). Case: McDonnell Douglas. A prima facie case is the plaintiff?s obligation to produce some evidence on each and every element of the cause of action. This is the plaintiff?s initial moving burden. BMFWE ? burden moving forward with evidence. Mr Green must provide proof against McDonnell Douglass. Pg 572. Private, non class action, challenging equality of employment. The petitioner denied discrimination of any kind. Burden of proof shifts upon the making of the prima facie case. Discrimination on basis of sex, religion, nationality, can be replaced with race in Title 7. 1. You belong to a racial minority, or group protected by Title 7. 2. That you applied for an qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants. 3. Despite your qualifications, you were not hired. 4. Employer continues to seek applicants. If you can prove all four conditions, you have a prima facie case. Creates a (rebuttable) presumption in the minds of the court that the discrimination occurred. Persuades the court that this trial should proceed. The defendant can challenge it, but if he doesn?t, the presumption stands. (balloon and bow-and-arrow metaphor). Merger of plaintiff?s burden of moving forward and the burden of persuasion. Page 573. Individual or group singled out for disparate treatment. The McDonnell Douglas standard was immediately used for all types of discrimination. Case: Texas Dept of Community Affairs. Burdine filed a complaint against them, they didnt promote her, she filed a suit. Quantum of proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt 99.9999?%. criminal cases. Clear and convincing evidence 85% Preponderance 51% (majority). civil trials. Presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated. If the employer remains silent, court will rule in favor of the plaintiff. Pg 579. Plaintiff retains the burden of persuasion ? It can never be placed on the defendant. The only burden on the defendant is that of moving forward with evidence, which equates to creating a presumption. Needed to show that employees similarly situated were not treated equally.
Want to see the other 3 page(s) in Women and the Law Nov 17.docx?JOIN TODAY FOR FREE!