Tortifying employment discrimination

Boston University Law Review

Volumn 92, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1431-1483

  Sullivan, Charles A ^a  

^a SIENA COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871946305     PISSN: 00068047     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Sandra F. Sperino, Statutory Proximate Cause, 88 NOTRE DAME L. REV. (forthcoming 2013) [hereinafter, Sperino, Statutory Proximate Cause] (questioning the Supreme Court's incorporation of common law doctrines as a legitimate exercise of statutory interpretation)
2. Sandra F. Sperino, Discrimination Statutes, the Common Law, and Proximate Cause, 2013 U. III . L. REV. (forthcoming 2013) (arguing that merely "identifying a cause of action in a tort in a general sense does not provide any meaningful basis for courts to apply proximate cause").
3. Kathleen M. Boozang & Simone Handler-Hutchinson, " Monitoring" Corporate Corruption: DOJ's Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements in Health Care, 35 AM. J.L. & MED. 89, 123 (2009)
4. Cynthia Estlund, Who Mops the Floors at the Fortune 500? Corporate Self-Regulation and the Low-Wage Workplace, 12 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 671,681-83(2008).
5. KATHERINE STONE, FROM WIDGETS TO DIGITS: EMPLOYMENT REGULATION FOR THE CHANGING WORKPLACE (2004)
6. Tristin K. Green, Discrimination in Workplace Dynamics: Toward a Structural Account of Disparate Treatment Theory, 38 HARV. C.R.-C.L. L. REV. 91, 104-05 (2003)
7. Joshua C. Polster, Note, Workplace Grievance Procedures: Signaling Fairness but Escalating Commitment, 86 N.Y.U. L. REV. 638, 640-41 (2011) (reporting an increase in formal, multi-level grievance procedures in the nonunion setting to the point that half of all large employers are now estimated to have formal procedures).
8. How Can Employers Deflect the Cat's Paw?, HUNTON EMP. & LAB. PERSP. (Mar. 17, 2011), http://www.huntonlaborblog.com/2011/03/articles/employment- policies/howcan-employers-deflect-the-cats-paw/ ("Staub serves as a stark reminder to employers that employee allegations of illegal bias in their treatment by managers and supervisors should be independently investigated, regardless when [sic] and at what point in the discipline process the allegations are raised.")
9. Jessica Glatzer Mason, U.S. Supreme Court Approves "Cat's Paw" Theory of Liability in Employment Discrimination Cases, WORK KNOWLEDGE BLOG (Mar. 16, 2011), http://www.workknowledgeblog.com/us-supreme-court-approvescats- paw-theory-of-liability-in-employment-discrimination-cases-1/
10. Stephen F. Befort & Alison L. Olig, Within the Grasp of the Cat's Paw: Delineating the Scope of Subordinate Bias Liability Under Federal Antidiscrimination Statutes, 60 S.C. L. REV. 383, 383-85 (2008)
11. Tim Davis, Beyond the Cat's Paw: An Argument for Adopting a "Substantially Influences" Standard for Title VII and ADEA Liability, 6 PIERCE L. REV. 247, 249 (2007)
12. Ali Razzaghi, Case Note, Hill v. Lockheed Martin Logistics Management, Inc.: "Substantially Influencing" the Fourth Circuit to Change Its Standard for Imputing Employer Liability for the Biases of a Non- Decisionmaker, 73 U. CiN. L. REV. 1709, 1712 (2005)
13. Keaton Wong, Comment, Weighing Influence: Employment Discrimination and the Theory of Subordinate Bias Liability, 57 AM. U. L. REV. 1729,1735 (2008).
14. Lisa M. Durham Taylor, The Pro-Employee Bent of the Roberts Court, 79 TENN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2012) (explaining that no federal court decision has yet refused to apply Staub to an antidiscrimination statute).
15. -42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m) (2006).
16. -38 U.S.C. § 4311(c)(1) (2006).
17. -42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g)(2)(B).
18. CHARLES A. SULLIVAN & LAUREN M. WALTER, EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION: LAW & PRACTICE § 2.03[D] (4th ed. 2009).
19. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL & EMOTIONAL HARM § (2011)
20. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 101-02 (2003)
21. Martin J. Katz, The Fundamental Incoherence of Title VII: Making Sense of Causation in Disparate Treatment Law, 94 GEO. L.J. 489,492 (2006).
22. Paul J. Gudel, Beyond Causation: The Interpretation of Action and the Mixed Motives Problem in Employment Discrimination Law, 70 TEX. L. REV. 17, 70 (1991).
23. Davis v. Town of Lake Park, 245 F.3d 1232, 1242-43 (11th Cir. 2001)
24. Primes v. Reno, 190 F.3d 765, 767 (6th Cir. 1999).
25. Charles A. Sullivan, From Cat's Paw to Proximate Cause: A Short Trip?, WORKPLACE PROF BLOG (Mar. 17, 2011), http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof- blog/2011/03/i-seem-to-be-inthe-habit-lately-of-looking-for-the-dark-side-of- generally-good-news-hyperlink-to-priorpostthis-time-its.html.
26. Mark C. Weber, Beyond Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: A New Approach to Mixed Motive Discrimination, 68 N.C. L. REV. 495, 498 (1990)
27. D. Don Welch, Removing Discriminatory Barriers: Basing Disparate Treatment Analysis on Motive Rather Than Intent, 60 S. CAL. L. REV. 733, 740 (1987)
28. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 676-77 (2009)
29. Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2682 (2009)
30. Charles A. Sullivan, Plausibly Pleading Employment Discrimination, 52 WM. & MARYL. REV. 1613 (2011).
31. Paul Weiler, The Wages of Sex: The Uses and Limits of Comparable Worth, 99 HARV. L. REV. 1728, 1751-52 (1986)
32. Michael C. Harper, The Causation Standard in Federal Employment Law: Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., and the Unfulfilled Promise of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 58 BUFF. L. REV. 69 (2010)
33. Martin J. Katz, Gross Disunity, 114 PENN STATE L. REV. 857 (2010)
34. Catherine T. Struve, Shifting Burdens: Discrimination Law Through the Lens of Jury Instructions, 51 B.C. L. REV. 281 (2010)
35. Charles A. Sullivan, Response, The Curious Incident of Gross and the Significance of Congress's Failure to Bark, 90 TEX. L. REV.
36. Deborah A. Widiss, Undermining Congressional Overrides: The Hydra Problem in Statutory Interpretation, 90 TEX. L. REV. 859 (2012).
37. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775, 793 (1998)
38. Peter Zablotsky, Mixing Oil and Water: Reconciling the Substantial Factor and Result-Within-the-Risk Approaches to Proximate Cause, 56 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 1003, 1028 (2008)
39. GEORGIA SUGGESTED PATTERN JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CIVIL § 60.202
40. Charles A. Sullivan, Standing to Bring Antidiscrimination Claims, WORKPLACE PROFBLOG (Feb. 21, 2011), http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof- blog/2011/02/likemany-of-us-i-was-pleased-with-the-outcome-in-thompson-v-north- american-stainless-lpholding-that-title-viis-anti.html.
41. Kristen David Adams, Blaming the Mirror: The Restatements and the Common Law, 40 IND. L. REV. 205, 206 (2007)
42. David G. Owen, Figuring Foreseeability, 44 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 1277, 1278, n.10 (2009).
43. Jill E. Fisch, Cause For Concern: Causation and Federal Securities Fraud, 94 IOWA L. REV. 811, 840-41 (2009)
44. Charles R. Lawrence III, The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection: Reckoning with Unconscious Racism, 39 STAN. L. REV. 317, 322 (1987).
45. -47 STAN. L. REV. 1161,1164-65(1995).
46. Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm. on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 391 (1973)
47. Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482, 504 (1977)
48. -21 B.C. L. REV. 345 (1980).
49. Patrick S. Shin, Liability for Unconscious Discrimination? A Thought Experiment in the Theory of Employment Discrimination Law, 62 HASTINGS L.J. 67, 89-90 (2010)
50. Mary Becker, Needed in the Nineties: Improved Individual and Structural Remedies for Racial and Sexual Disadvantages in Employment, 79 GEO L.J. 1659, 1667 (1991)
51. -499 U.S. 187, 199 (1991)
52. -435 U.S. 702, 711 (1978)
53. Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542, 544 (1971)
54. Marc R. Poirier, Is Cognitive Bias at Work a Dangerous Condition on Land?, 1 EMP. RTS. & EMP. POL'Y J. 459 (2003)
55. Devah Pager, The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future, 609 ANNALS AM. ACAD. POL. & Soc. Sci. 104,126-30 (2007).
56. Ian Ayres, Fair Driving: Gender and Race Discrimination in Retail Car Negotiations, 104 HARV. L. REV. 817, 819 (1991)
57. Ian Ayres, Further Evidence of Discrimination in New Car Negotiations and Estimates of Its Cause, 94 MICH. L. REV. 109, 109 (1995)
58. Ian Ayres & Peter Siegelman, Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car, 85 AM. ECON. REV. 304, 304 (1995).
59. Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan, Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha andJamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination, 94 AM. ECON. REV. 991, 92 (2004)
60. David Neumark, Sex Discrimination in Restaurant Hiring: An Audit Study, 111 Q.J. ECON. 915, 917-18(1996).
61. Michael Waterstone, A New Vision of Public Enforcement, 92 MINN. L. REV. 434, 471-73 (2007)
62. Michael J. Yelnosky, Filling an Enforcement Void: Using Testers to Uncover and Remedy Discrimination in Hiring for Lower-Skilled, Entry-Level Jobs, 26 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 403, 409 (1993)
63. Leroy D. Clark, Employment Discrimination Testing: Theories of Standing and a Reply to Professor Yelnosky, 28 U. MICH. J.L. REFORM 1 (1994).
64. RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, FORBIDDEN GROUNDS: THE CASE AGAINST EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAWS 55-58 (1992).
65. James J. Heckman, Detecting Discrimination, 12 J. ECON. PERSP. 101, 107-11 (1998)
66. James Heckman & Peter Siegelman, The Urban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods and Findings, in CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE: MEASUREMENT OF DISCRIMINATION IN AMERICA 187, 188 (Michael Fix & Raymond J. Struyk, eds. 1993).
67. Joseph Price & Justin Wolfers, Racial Discrimination Among NBA Referees, 125 Q.J. ECON. 1859, 1859-60 (2010)
68. Christopher A. Parsons et al., Strike Three: Umpires' Demand for Discrimination 24 (Nat'l Bureau of Econ. Research, Working Paper No. 13665, 2007), available at http://www.nber.org/papers/wl3665.pdf
69. Laura Guliano, David Levine, & Jonathan Leonard, Manager Race and the Race of New Hires, 27 J. LAB. ECON. 589, 626 (2009).
70. Project Implicit, HARVARD UNIV., https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit (last visited Sept. 3,2011).
71. Brian A. Nosek, Mahzarin R. Banaji & Anthony G. Greenwald, Harvesting Implicit Group Attitudes and Beliefs from a Demonstration Web Site, 6 GROUP DYNAMICS 101, 101-02 (2002) (reporting results from some 600,000 tests).
72. Gregory Mitchell, Second Thoughts, 40 MCGEORGE L. REV. 687, 687 (2009)
73. Gregory Mitchell & Philip E. Tetlock, Antidiscrimination Law and the Perils of Mindreading, 67 OHIO ST. L.J. 1023, 1023 (2006)
74. Amy L. Wax, Supply Side or Discrimination? Assessing the Role of Unconscious Bias, 83 TEMP. L. REV. 877, 883-902 (2011)
75. Samuel R. Bagenstos, Implicit Bias, "Science," and Antidiscrimination Law, 1 HARV. L. & POL'Y REV. 477, 482 (2007)
76. Gregory Mitchell & Philip E. Tetlock, Facts Do Matter: A Reply to Bagenstos, 37 HOFSTRA L. REV. 737, 738 (2009)
77. Jerry Kang, Trojan Horses of Race, 118 HARV. L. REV. 1489, 1510-11 (2005)
78. Jerry Kang & Mahzarin R. Banaji, Fair Measures: A Behavioral Realist Revision of "Affirmative Action," 94 CAL. L. REV. 1063, 1072-78 (2006)
79. Linda Hamilton Krieger & Susan T. Fiske, Behavioral Realism in Employment Discrimination Law: Implicit Bias and Disparate Treatment, 94 CAL. L. REV. 997,1033-62 (2006).
80. Ralph Richard Banks & Richard Thompson Ford, (How) Does Unconscious Bias Matter?: Law, Politics, and Racial Inequality, 58 EMORY L.J. 1053, 1058 (2009)
81. John B. McConahay, Modern Racism, Ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale, in PREJUDICE, DISCRIMINATION, AND RACISM 91, 98-120
82. Katharine T. Bartlett, Making Good on Good Intentions: The Critical Role of Motivation in Reducing Implicit Workplace Discrimination, 95 VA. L. REV. 1893, (2009)
83. Michael Selmi, Proving Intentional Discrimination: The Reality of Supreme Court Rhetoric, 86 GEO. L.J. 279, 294 (1997)
84. Amy L. Wax, Discrimination as Accident, 74 IND. L.J. 1129, 1138 (1999)
85. Charles Lawrence III, Unconscious Racism Revisited: Reflections on the Impact and Origins of "The Id, the Ego, and Equal Protection," 40 CONN. L. REV. 931, 942 (2008)
86. Tristin K. Green, A Structural Approach as Antidiscrimination Mandate: Locating Employer Wrong, 60 VAND. L. REV. 849, 897-98 (2007)
87. David Benjamin Oppenheimer, Negligent Discrimination, 141 U. PA. L. REV. 899, 900 (1993)
88. -481 U.S. 279, 297 (1987).
89. RAMONA L. PAETZOLD & STEVEN L. WILLBORN, THE STATISTICS OF DISCRIMINATION: USING STATISTICAL EVIDENCE IN DISCRIMINATION CASES § 11.05 (2002).
90. McCleskey, 481 U.S. at 297
91. Roger C. Park & Michael J. Saks, Evidence Scholarship Reconsidered: Results of the Interdisciplinary Turn, 47 B.C. L. REV. 949 (2006).
92. Tristin K. Green & Alexandra Kalev, Discrimination-Reducing Measures at the Relational Level, 59 HASTINGS L.J. 1435, 1435-36 (2008)
93. Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, Debiasing Through Law, 35 J. LEGAL STUD. 199, 200-03 (2006)
94. Gowri Ramachandran, Antisubordination, Rights, and Radicalism, 40 CONN. L. REV. 1045,1047-49 (2008).
95. Suzanne B. Goldberg, Discrimination by Comparison, 120 YALE. L.J. 728, 734 (2011)
96. Michael Evan Gold, Towards a Unified Theory of Employment Discrimination,BERKELEY J. EMP. & LAB. L. 175, 216 (2001)
97. Tom DeVine, Jr., Survey, The Critical Effect of a Pretext Jury Instruction, 80 Denv. U. L. Rev. 549 (2003).
98. Charles A. Sullivan, Disparate Impact: Looking Past the Desert Palace Mirage, Al WM. & MARY L. REV. 911,951 (2005).
99. Martha Chamallas, Listening to Dr. Fiske: The Easy Case o/Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,VT. L. REV. 89, 90-91 (1990)