Employee Discrimination

THE TITLE VII FIGHT: A CONSIDERATION OF CAUSATION IN RETALIATION CLAIMS (Part VII)

III. ProposalAs the debate over if Price’s burden shifting scheme and motivating factors can and should be applied to retaliation claims after Gross continues, the right question must be asked before the right answer can be determined.

Continue Reading

THE TITLE VII FIGHT: A CONSIDERATION OF CAUSATION IN RETALIATION CLAIMS (Part VI)

II. AnalysisB. The 1991 Amendment – Revisited However, Kenney’s analysis is inherently flawed. Regardless of if Pricecontrolled all of Title VII at the time of decision, Congress’s actions during the 1991 amendment is ultimately controlling.

Continue Reading

THE TITLE VII FIGHT: A CONSIDERATION OF CAUSATION IN RETALIATION CLAIMS (Part V)

II. AnalysisA. The Meaning Of Because As some commentators have noted, the confusion created by Price and Gross, can be summarized by determining if Price applied to all of Title VII.

Continue Reading

THE TITLE VII FIGHT: A CONSIDERATION OF CAUSATION IN RETALIATION CLAIMS (Part IV)

I. BackgroundD. Smith V. Xerox Corp. After Gross, the Fifth Circuit had the task of deciding if the Price scheme was still good law, and if so, what limits did it have.

Continue Reading