only use class materiel
alawedahome
abcd.pptx14th Amendment Equal Protection: Discrimination
Various Criteria:
Basic assumption that government acted lawfully: victim has burden of proof, common law
- “simple rationality test”
- typical merit requirements
“Suspect classifications”: race, alien status, religion brings “strict scrutiny”: government must have at least a “compelling interest”: constitutional law
Middle ground: reasonableness: gender, age, minor interests, disabilities: statutory law
- Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009: pay discrimination due to gender can be contested long after initial pay decision was made if lower pay is ongoing
1
Public Employment: Equal protection
de jure v. de facto discrimination
2
Public Employment: Equal protection
Evolving race criteria:
Adarand v. Pena (1995): compelling interest needed for affirmative action. Narrowly tailored remedy expected
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009): City of New Haven violated Title VII by refusing to certify test results when no black firefighters passed. Cannot reject open fair process solely on disparate results
Comcast v. National Association of African-American Owned Media(2020) : “But for cause”:
3
Public Employment: Equal protection
Equal Protection in College admission indicates court’s continual evolution:
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014)
States can ban consideration of race in college admissions or other public programs
But already the court had banned any form of affirmative action that created any sort of quotas or operated mechanically.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin(2016): left basic law
race-based preferences inherently suspect but legal if schools -- and by extension, employers -- provide strong evidence their affirmative-action programs are narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity.
4
Recent notable movement on discrimination(not administrative law)
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC (2012)
Courts cannot tell religious organizations who can they can fire as ministers: “ministerial exception”
In hiring and firing of Sunday school teacher, first amendment trumps employment laws
The Hobby Lobby case (2014): cannot require private employees to provide birth control
5
Public Employment: Equal protection: Gender
Title VI of 1964 Civil Rights Act: forbids discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and national origin
Title VII: applies Title VI to state and local governments
- Retirement programs cannot discriminate
6
Public Employment: Equal protection: Gender
Feeney v. Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts (1979)
- veteran’s preference challenge – public interest in rewarding veterans outweighed gender impact
Supreme Court has struck down discrimination of gays/lesbians if there was no public purpose
United States v. Windsor (2013) : Federal Defense of Marriage Act overturned
7
Employment: Equal protection: Gender
Harassment: Harris v. Forklift Systems (1993): “hostile environment” may constitute discrimination
Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders (2004): were conditions so intolerable that reasonable person would feel forced to quit?
“Conditional discharge” could constitute a employer action that qualifies for Title VII standing
8
Public Employment: Equal protection: Gender
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003) - Rehnquist, 6-3
State must allow mothers and fathers to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act
Documented history of workplace sex discrimination
9
Public Employment: Equal protection: Age
Age discrimination in Employment Act (1967)
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000): states immune from suits in federal courts, except in special case of court participants
11th Amendment
- burden on private or non-federal gov’t employee to prove firing based primarily on age: JACK GROSS, PETITIONER v. FBL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. (2009)
complicated in cutbacks, contracting
Babb v. Wilkie (2020): Federal employees simply need to show discrimination was present, not standard of “but for”
10
Public Employment: Equal protection: Disabilities
Americans With Disabilities Act (1990)
- protects broadly, over 43 millions possibly protected
- employers must make “reasonable accommodations”, but can avoid actions that entail “undue hardship”
- falls under Kimel rule for state governments: Alabama v. Garrett (2001)
11
