A structural approach as antidiscrimination mandate: Locating employer wrong

Vanderbilt Law Review

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 849-904

  Green, Tristin K ^a  

^a Seton Hall Law School ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 36248946102     PISSN: 00422533     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. See, e.g., Martha Chamallas, The Market Excuse, 68 U. CHI. L. REV. 579 (2001);
2. Tristin K. Green, Discrimination in Workplace Dynamics: Toward a Structural Account of Disparate Treatment Theory, 38 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 91 (2003) [hereinafter Green, Discrimination in Workplace Dynamics];
3. Tristin K. Green, Work Culture and Discrimination, 93 CAL. L. REV. 623 (2005) [hereinafter Green, Work Culture];
4. Susan Sturm, Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach, 101 COLUM. L. REV. 458 (2001).
5. Samuel R. Bagenstos, The Structural Turn and the Limits of Antidiscrimination Law, 94 CAL. L. REV. 1, 40 (2006) (arguing that a structural approach "may be asking antidiscrimination law to do too much of the work of responding to society's inequalities"). Professor Bagenstos is the first to question directly the normative foundation for a structural approach, but other scholars have argued that a structural approach, if pursued, should be understood as a form of distributive justice,
6. see, e.g., Julie Chi-hye Suk, Antidiscrimination Law in the Administrative State, 2006 U. ILL. L. REV. 405, 407, and still others have attempted to recast the problem of structural discrimination to fit the paradigmatic case of intentional or animus-based exclusion as a way of gaining political traction,
7. see, e.g., Michael Selmi, Sex Discrimination in the Nineties, Seventies Style: Case Studies in the Preservation of Male Workplace Norms, 9 EMP. RTS. & EMP. POL'Y J. 1, 3-4 (2005) (arguing that recent class action cases are "inconsistent with the emphasis on subtle discrimination").
8. For example, in his 1996 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Bob Dole railed against the creation of "special rights" for disadvantaged groups: "[Rights] ought not to be based on gender or ethnicity or color or disability. . . . This is America. No discrimination. Discrimination ought to be punished.... [T]here ought to be equal opportunity . . . [b]ut we cannot guarantee equal results in America." Transcript of Second Televised Debate Between Clinton and Dole, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 17, 1996, at B10, B11.
9. For a fascinating account of conservative legal activism surrounding "special rights" in the context of treaty-rights claims of Native American tribal nations, see Jeffrey R. Dudas, In the Name of Equal Rights: "Special" Rights and the Politics of Resentment in Post-Civil Rights America, 39 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 723 (2005).
10. E.g., Samuel R. Bagenstos, "Rational Discrimination," Accommodation, and the Politics of (Disability) Civil Rights, 89 VA. L. REV. 825 (2003);
11. Michael Ashley Stein, Same Struggle, Different Difference: ADA Accommodations as Antidiscrimination, 153 U. PA. L. REV. 579, 585 (2004) (arguing that the ADA reasonable accommodation requirement is normatively similar to Title VII's requirements because it "remedies the avoidable workplace exclusion of a targeted group");
12. see also Deborah L. Brake, Retaliation, 90 MINN. L. REV. 18, 21 (2005) (arguing that "[t]heorizing retaliation as a form of discrimination" is useful because it "requires moving beyond discrimination law's current dominant framework of status-based differential treatment and toward a broader conception that views discrimination as the maintenance of race and gender privilege").
13. Bagenstos, supra note 4, at 922.
14. Id. at 921.
15. RICHARD THOMPSON FORD, RACIAL CULTURE: A CRITIQUE 172-79 (2005).
16. Green, Discrimination in Workplace Dynamics, supra note 1, at 95-108.
17. Mahzarin R. Banaji, The Opposite of a Great Truth is Also True: Homage to Koan #7, in PERSPECTIVISM IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: THE YIN & YANG OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS 127, 130-38 (John T. Jost et al. eds., 2003) (describing the evolution of the author's research on implicit attitudes);
18. Anthony G. Greenwald et al., Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test, 74 J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHOL. 1464 (1998). The IAT builds on a long line of sequential priming and other studies measuring automatic associative processes.