Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2257992912> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 45 of
45
with 100 items per page.
- W2257992912 abstract "Hidden beneath judicial and scholarly obsession with formal proof structures for individual cases is a simpler, more direct method of establishing discrimination. Taking the disparate treatment label seriously, I argue that proof requires merely that the plaintiff identify a similarly situated person of another race or the opposite sex who was treated more favorably than plaintiff. Such proof is increasingly driving litigation in the lower courts, which suggests that comparators should be moved to center stage in the antidiscrimination project However, like other efforts, the comparator approach risks falling victim to the general hostility of the courts to discrimination claims The Supreme Court in Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. recently rejected an extreme slap in the face rule regarding relative qualifications of plaintiff and a comparator, but Ash left in place a network of other circuit court rules that collectively seem to require each comparator to be the almost twin of the plaintiff before more favorable of him is a sufficient basis for the trier of fact to infer discrimination. The Court's latest decision in the area, Sprint/United Management Co. v. Mendelsohn, casts further doubt on the inflexible rule-orientation of many lower courts, requiring instead a holistic and contextual assessment of evidence. Nevertheless, fundamental judicial hostility remains intact. This negative view derives from common judicial perceptions that random, and even irrational, factors are more likely explanations for workplace disparities than is discrimination. Thus, only when those factors are ruled out by an almost-twin comparator will the courts permit the inference of discrimination. Absent evidence to the contrary, the courts may be justified in using their perceptions of the relative probability of discrimination as opposed to other explanations to influence their determinations as to when a jury question is created. These legislative facts are traditionally within the purview of the courts. Nevertheless, this Article contends that plaintiffs can counteract judicial perceptions, and create a jury issue, by introducing evidence both of the prevalence of discrimination generally and, more central to my thesis, by introducing expert testimony regarding comparators. Drawing on such sources as trade usage in contracts and professional standards of care in torts, this Article argues that a more objective standard should be substituted for current judicial worldviews. It recommends assessing the comparability of proffered comparators not by judicial instinct but by expert testimony about whether other employers would treat such individuals comparably to plaintiff." @default.
- W2257992912 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2257992912 creator A5064776545 @default.
- W2257992912 date "2008-01-01" @default.
- W2257992912 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
- W2257992912 title "The Phoenix from the Ash: Proving Discrimination by Comparators" @default.
- W2257992912 cites W4237044411 @default.
- W2257992912 doi "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1099595" @default.
- W2257992912 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
- W2257992912 type Work @default.
- W2257992912 sameAs 2257992912 @default.
- W2257992912 citedByCount "2" @default.
- W2257992912 countsByYear W22579929122012 @default.
- W2257992912 countsByYear W22579929122021 @default.
- W2257992912 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2257992912 hasAuthorship W2257992912A5064776545 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConcept C158739034 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConcept C205649164 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConcept C2779167034 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConcept C39432304 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConceptScore W2257992912C158739034 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConceptScore W2257992912C166957645 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConceptScore W2257992912C205649164 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConceptScore W2257992912C2779167034 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConceptScore W2257992912C33923547 @default.
- W2257992912 hasConceptScore W2257992912C39432304 @default.
- W2257992912 hasLocation W22579929121 @default.
- W2257992912 hasOpenAccess W2257992912 @default.
- W2257992912 hasPrimaryLocation W22579929121 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W159085137 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W1826780262 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W1971527263 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W2025623318 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W2095994128 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W2260723173 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W2271018808 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W3006525479 @default.
- W2257992912 hasRelatedWork W4288066520 @default.
- W2257992912 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2257992912 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2257992912 magId "2257992912" @default.
- W2257992912 workType "article" @default.