We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
A LACK OF "MOTIVATION," OR SOUND LEGAL REASONING? WHY MOST COURTS ARE NOT APPLYING EITHER PRICE WATERHOUSE" S OR THE 1991 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT'S MOTIVATING-FACTOR ANALYSIS TO TITLE VII RETALIATION CLAIMS IN A POST-GROSS WORLD (BUT SHOULD).
- Authors
Rosenthal, Lawrence D.
- Abstract
The article focuses on the Civil Rights Act of 1991 that provides Title VII's antidiscrimination provisions to address both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims. It informs that the Act failed to apply Title VII's anti retaliation provision which prohibits employer from discriminating against individuals. It analyzes motivating-factor of the Act in the U.S. Supreme Court case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins and Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
- Subjects
UNITED States. Civil Rights Act of 1991; DISPARATE impact (Law); ANTI-discrimination laws; INDUSTRIAL relations; UNITED States. Supreme Court
- Publication
Alabama Law Review, 2013, Vol 64, Issue 5, p1067
- ISSN
0002-4279
- Publication type
Article