Midterm Cases Keywords

Cases

Bradwell v. Illinois

The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t protect an individual’s right to practice law.

Minor v. Happersett

Laws limiting suffrage and registration to men alone do not violate the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Muller v. Oregon

There are special differences between men and women that necessitate protective lower work hours for women.

Frontiero v. Richardson

Limiting servicewomen to claim their husbands as dependents unless they are dependent for over ½ their support is an unconstitutional discrimination in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Reasoning: Split on whether sex was a suspect characteristic.

Craig v. Boren

Intermediate standard for scrutiny: sex classifications must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives.

Orr v. Orr

A statutory framework authorizing the imposition of alimony obligations on husbands but not wives violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Reasoning: The Alabama statutory scheme imposes different treatment on the basis of sex, triggering a classification subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. In order to withstand scrutiny, classifications by gender must meet intermediate standard

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp

Sex-plus discrimination case (the plus is mothers of young children)

Personnel Admin’r of Mass. v. Feeney

Veteran’s preference statutes. Unless a ‘facially’ neutral statute that imposes a disproportionate disadvantage on members of one sex or race can be shown to have been adopted intentionally, it will be reviewed under the rational basis standard.

Michael M. v. Superior Ct. of Sonoma Cty.

Youth SA case. Applied intermediate scrutiny and it passed the test. Men and women weren’t similar in terms of pregnancy, so the law didn’t have to apply equally, and the objective of preventing teen pregnancy passed the intermediate standard.

Miss. Univ. for Women v. Hogan

Gender-based classifications favoring one sex can be justified if it intentionally and directly assists members of the disproportionately burdened sex. Compensatory objectives of a sex-based program must be genuine; giving a benign purpose isn’t an auto shield. Also, men are protected by the EPC.

Nichols v. Azteca Restaurant Enterprises

Sexual harassment against a man (including by men) for not meeting sex stereotypes constitutes sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Disparate treatment and sex stereotyping case

Bostock v. Clayton County

Found that firing an employee for being gay or transgender constitutes disparate treatment and violates Title VII.

EEOC v. Brown & Root, Inc.

But-for. The sex of the plaintiff is a necessary condition for the discriminatory treatment.

Los Angeles Dept. of Water v. Manhart

Sex-based difference in paying into pensions based on actuarial data still discriminated against individual female employees. Even though it was based on a real sex-based fact, not all individuals meet the group assumption. Title VII requires fairness to individuals.

Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine

Clarified the disparate treatment burden structure. After the plaintiff proves the prima facie case of discrimination, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant to show nondiscriminatory reasons for the decision by creating a genuine issue of fact.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Addressed mixed-motives case for sex-discrimination and was example of direct method of showing pretext. An employment decision motivated in part by sex stereotyping violates Title VII, unless the same decision would have been made in the absence of the discriminatory considerations.

Lindahl v. Air France

Evidence of discriminatory motive raised a genuine issue of fact regarding pretext. Can use indirect methods to argue pretext.

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company v. White

Rejected the materially adverse standard for retaliation in favor of a test requiring the retaliation to dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Griggs v. Duke Power Co.

Established disparate impact theory. Said a facially neutral standard that discriminates based on race in practice when the standard is not related to job performance violates Title VII.

Test: any given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employer in question. Established the burden of proof structure for disparate impact.

Goesaert v. Cleary

Rational discrimination because of moral and social issues caused by female bartending. Can’t question the motivation behind the law if it’s based in reason.

Hoyt v. Florida

Florida’s exemption of women from juries unless they volunteer doesn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because women are still the center of family life.

Reed v. Reed

Sex-based discrimination violates the Equal Protection Clause.

The classification must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must differentiate in a way that is fair and substantially related to the object of the legislation.

Dothard v. Rawlinson

1. Disparate impact case: Established that statutory height and weight requirements constitute disparate impact and discriminate against women in violation of Title VII. Applied the Griggs burden-of-proof structure to sex.

2. BFOQ case: Allowed maleness as a BFOQ for work as a prison guard in AL’s maximum security prisons because of their unique and specific heightened risks for women, like increased sexual assault probability. Limited to until AL fixed prisons.

Cheatwood v. So. Cent. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

Employer has to produce a factual basis for believing all or substantially all women will be unable to perform safely and effectively the duties of the position.

Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

Discrimination based on sex through BFOQ is valid only when the essence of the business operation would be undermined by not hiring members of one sex exclusively. Business necessity tests are used, not a business convenience test, and consumer preferences don’t dictate the validity of discrimination.

U.A.W. v. Johnson Controls

Policies excluding women from jobs on the basis of potential fetal harm violate Title VII. This is facial discrimination based on sex, and the BFOQ doesn’t count as a defense because it is limited to instances where sex/pregnancy actually interferes with the ability to perform the job.

Test: PDA BFOQ says unless pregnant employees differ from others in their ability or inability to work, they must be treated the same as other employees for all employment-related purposes.

Healey v. Southwood Psychiatric Hospital

Gender-based shift assignment is a BFOQ in therapeutic environments, such as those dealing with sexually abused kids, where sex discrimination is necessary to provide therapeutic care and due to significant privacy reasons.

Meritor Saving Bank v. Vinson

Ruled that both quid pro quo and hostile environment sexual harassment constitute sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. The employer is not automatically liable for harassment by a supervisor.

Test: sexual harassment includes unwelcome sexual behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive or hostile work environment.

Faragher v. City of Boca Raton

Employers can be held liable under Title VII when supervisors create a sexually hostile work environment.

Test: Must show that the employee failed in a coordinate duty to avoid or mitigate harm. If they fail to avoid/mitigate harm, there is no liability/damages.

Vicarious liability test: An employer is subject to vicarious liability for an actionable hostile environment created by a supervisor with immediate authority over the employee.

Affirmative defenses: When no tangible employment action was taken, the employer can raise affirmative defense under a preponderance of the evidence by showing both:

1. Employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly sexually harassing behavior.

2. Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of preventive or corrective opportunities offered by employer, or to avoid harm otherwise.

Ellison v. Brady

“reasonable woman” standard to determine whether harassment created a sufficiently hostile working environment to violate Title VII.

Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards

Abusive working environment due to sexual harassment can be shown if the behavior affected the victim’s psychological well-being. Requires the plaintiff to show that a reasonable person of the victim’s sex would perceive that an abusive working environment had been created.

Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc

Invalidated the the psychological harm requirement in harassment claims, upheld Vinson standard.

Cleveland Board of Ed. v. LaFleur

Requirements to take unpaid maternity leave (especially imposed at a specific stage in pregnancy) violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they compromise reproductive rights of female workers by assuming their inability to work.

General Electric Co. v. Gilbert

Exclusion of pregnancy-related disabilities from company disability plans doesn’t discriminate based on sex, under Geduldig. The program divides potential recipients into two groups: pregnant— only women, and non-pregnant—both men and women.

California Federal Savings v. Guerra

Title VII does not preempt state laws that mandate greater pregnancy disability benefits than federal law requires. Title VII is a floor, not a ceiling.

Young v. United Parcel Service

A pregnant worker can make a prima facie case of disparate treatment by showing she sought and was denied accommodation and the employer did accommodate others similar in their ability or inability to work. The employer can try to show legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons other than expense or convenience. The worker can then provide sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers, and the ‘legitimate, nondiscriminatory’ reasons are not sufficiently strong enough to justify the burden.

Chambers v. Omaha Girls Club

Nonpregnancy is a BFOQ under Title VII because it falls under a role model rule justified by business necessity.

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan

Plaintiff must show employer pays different wages to employees of opposite sex for equal work under similar working conditions;

Employer then has the burden to show that the pay differential is justified under one of the Act’s four exceptions (seniority, merit, quantity/quality of production, any other non-sex based reason)

Jesperson v. Harrah’s Operating Co.

Sex-specific appearance rules are acceptable as long as the rules do not impose unequal burdens on men and women.