There may be a perception among some forensic economists that the time horizon for future damages in employment discrimination cases is the period the plaintiff would have remained employed with the defendant employer but for the discrimination. While the discrimination acts and interpretive case law concerning damages are nuanced as a result of the rather archaic distinction between equitable and legal remedies, it is clear that the law recognizes that discriminatory acts may injure an individual's earning capacity. Therefore, the law allows for the equitable relief of front pay and the distinct legal remedy of compensatory damages in the form of future lost earnings. While the former contemplates employment with a specific employer (i.e., the defendant), the latter does not.
This article takes a closer look at whether the single employer doctrine appropriately limits the small firm exemption, particularly in Title VII (Civil Rights Act 1964) and the employment discrimination laws modeled after Title VII. Small firms are exempt from Title VII because the Act defines "employer" as a person who has fifteen or more employees. When separate corporations are a "single employer," they are treated as one entity for one or more employment law purposes, including satisfaction of statutory coverage thresholds. The rhetoric of the congressional debate presented the exemption as protection for small, individually and family-owned businesses, not subsidiaries of multi-corporate enterprises. Tradition, statutory text, and congressional intent appear to support the single ...
Introduction II. The Real Statistical Story III. The Bias Courts Bring To Cases A. Race Discrimination Claims B. Age Discrimination Claims C. The Americans with Disabilities Act D. Gender Discrimination Cases E. A Neutral Explanation IV. Overcoming The Bias V. Conclusion
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (``EEOC'' or ``Commission'') is issuing this final rule to amend its Age Discrimination in Employment Act (``ADEA'' or ``Act'') regulations concerning disparate-impact claims and the reasonable factors other than age defense (``RFOA''). The Commission published proposed rules in the Federal Register on March 31, 2008, and February 18, 2010, for sixty-day notice-and-comment periods. After consideration of the public comments, the Commission has revised portions of the proposed rules and is now issuing a final rule covering both proposals.
In May of 2007 in response to a perceived "potential for greater discrimination against working parents and others with caregiving responsibilities", the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new enforcement guidance addressing Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities (EEOC-A, 2007). On April 22, 2009, the EEOC issued additional guidance to employers, Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities, offering "proactive measures that go beyond federal non-discrimination requirements" (EEOCB, 2009). These guidelines are designed to reduce employers' exposure to litigation for "violations against caregivers, and to remove barriers to equal employment opportunity" (EEOC B, 2009). This paper examines the initi...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Francesco Smalto | bank charges meaning | Raymond Lévy | International Select Group, Inc. | Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. | gestion humano modelo recurso | Collaudo industriale | Culpa sin culpabilidad | auchel carte | Tourouvre
