Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=982417
 
 

Citations (2)



 
 

Footnotes (131)



 


 



Unifying Disparate Treatment (Really)


Martin Katz


University of Denver Sturm College of Law


Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 59, No. 3, February 2008
University of Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-26

Abstract:     
Currently, there are three different frameworks for litigating disparate treatment cases: one prescribed by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, one prescribed by Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and one prescribed by McDonnell Douglas v. Green. Each provides a different causation requirement and burden of proof. The fact that the Supreme Court and Congress have failed to delineate when which framework applies has caused multiple circuit splits and vast amounts of costly litigation. But there is an even more significant cost: Two of the three frameworks (Price Waterhouse and McDonnell Douglas) have significant normative flaws. This Essay articulates those flaws. It then provides a way out of this morass: a way in which the lower courts can stop using the two flawed frameworks and truly unify disparate treatment law under the 1991 Act framework

Number of Pages in PDF File: 38

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: April 26, 2007 ; Last revised: March 22, 2012

Suggested Citation

Katz, Martin, Unifying Disparate Treatment (Really). Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 59, No. 3, February 2008; University of Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-26. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=982417

Contact Information

Martin Katz (Contact Author)
University of Denver Sturm College of Law ( email )
2255 E. Evans Ave., 460B
Denver, CO 80208
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,139
Downloads: 130
Download Rank: 124,142
Citations:  2
Footnotes:  131

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.297 seconds