FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W96706724> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W96706724 startingPage "407" @default.
• W96706724 abstract "I. IntroductionIn Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products,1 the United States Supreme Court resolved some lingering questions surrounding the role of pretext in a plaintiff's employment discrimination claim,2 but the federal courts of appeals continue to disagree over whether trial courts must instruct juries on pretext in employment discrimination litigation.3 Specifically, a circuit split currently exists regarding whether a trial court must instruct the jury that it may, but need not, infer intentional discrimination on the part of the employer if the jury disbelieves the employer's explanation for the employment decision affecting the plaintiff.4 The Supreme Court has defined this permissible inference as a correct statement of law that, if met, sufficiently supports a jury finding for the plaintiff.5 Unfortunately, the Court has failed to address the question of whether to mandate a pretext instruction.6 The pretext instruction represents a unique issue because it describes a permissible inference rather than an obligatory inference.7In civil litigation, courts generally follow the rule that a judge need not instruct the jury on permissible inferences because the average trial contains a virtually unlimited number of possible inferences that the jury may draw from any given piece of evidence.8 A judge's decision to single out a particular inference in a jury instruction could result in undue emphasis on the issue.9 Instead, courts typically rely on the arguments of counsel to flesh out appropriate permissible inferences.10 In the context of employment discrimination litigation, however, the permissible inference described in the pretext instruction bears particular significance.11Employment discrimination cases generally present complex litigation problems because they involve sensitive social issues and circumstantial evidence.12 Employees today enjoy a high degree of protection against racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination, but may have difficulty proving such claims.13 Meanwhile, employers often adopt explicit codes of conduct forbidding discrimination in the workplace, but despite such policies, discrimination often finds ways to survive.14 The delicate and complex balance inherent in employment discrimination litigation therefore requires precise consideration of all aspects of the case, including the proper format of the jury instructions.15In most employment discrimination cases in which issues of pretext arise, the defendant will provide all sorts of seemingly legitimate reasons to justify its behavior while the plaintiff will fight to discredit these justifications and prove that the employer acted based on a discriminatory and impermissible motive.16 However, the plaintiff will rarely, if ever, ferret out any sort of smoking gun or affirmative evidence demonstrating discrimination by the employer.17 Thus, creating an inference that the employer lied can give rise to the extremely important inference that the employer lied for a particular reason: to cover up a discriminatory purpose.18 This simple chain of inferences represents the heart of the controversy involving the proposed jury instruction.19In addition to the significance of this particular issue, the sheer volume of employment discrimination cases on the federal docket and the need for national uniformity in the litigation of these disputes necessitates Supreme Court resolution of this circuit split. The number of employment discrimination cases filed in federal court has tripled during the past decade, and discrimination claims currently comprise approximately ten percent of federal cases.20 These private lawsuits play a vital role in the enforcement of anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII.21 If some circuits require a plaintiff-friendly instruction while others do not, then forum-shopping seems inevitable, as trial courts across the country scrutinize employment decisions for compliance with different federal statutes. …" @default.
• W96706724 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W96706724 creator A5015378188 @default.
• W96706724 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W96706724 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W96706724 title "Pretext in Employment Discrimination Litigation: Mandatory Instructions for Permissible Inferences?" @default.
• W96706724 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W96706724 type Work @default.
• W96706724 sameAs 96706724 @default.
• W96706724 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W96706724 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W96706724 hasAuthorship W96706724A5015378188 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2776071657 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2778893106 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2779627259 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C2994519032 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C538833194 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W96706724 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C151730666 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C17744445 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C199539241 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2776071657 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2776119841 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2778272461 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2778893106 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2779343474 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2779627259 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C2994519032 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C538833194 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C86803240 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C94625758 @default.
• W96706724 hasConceptScore W96706724C97460637 @default.
• W96706724 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W96706724 hasLocation W967067241 @default.
• W96706724 hasOpenAccess W96706724 @default.
• W96706724 hasPrimaryLocation W967067241 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W1487291053 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W1517159430 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W1569863242 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W1585537251 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W243195079 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W2702257524 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W2965121378 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3121272391 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3121538483 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3122338904 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3123814926 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3124137948 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3124161411 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3124354810 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W3137663405 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W314872195 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W78099934 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W840335113 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W2111549510 @default.
• W96706724 hasRelatedWork W2903179859 @default.
• W96706724 hasVolume "61" @default.
• W96706724 isParatext "false" @default.
• W96706724 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W96706724 magId "96706724" @default.
• W96706724 workType "article" @default.