The Next Generation of Disparate Treatment: A Merger of Law and Social Science

By Gomez, Michelle R. | The Review of Litigation, Summer 2013 | Go to article overview

The Next Generation of Disparate Treatment: A Merger of Law and Social Science


Gomez, Michelle R., The Review of Litigation


I. Introduction 554

II. The Law 555

A. The Civil Rights Act of1964 and Title VII 555

B. Disparate Treatment Under Title VII: The Burden-Shifting Framework 556

C. Intentional Animus, Rational Discrimination and Stereotyping: The Development of Disparate Treatment Jurisprudence 562

1. The Beginning of Mixed-Motive Analysis 564

D. The 1991 Amendments, Codifying Mixed-Motive Analysis, and Evidentiary Burdens 564

III. The Science: Discrimination and Decision Making 566

A. Causation v. Intent 566

B. The Decision-Making Process Dissected 568

1. Social Cognition Theory and the Source of Bias 568

2. Unconscious Bias 570

C. Mental Contamination 572

D. Mental Correction: What Works and What Doesn't 575

IV. A Way Forward 577

A. Exposure Control, Objective Criteria and Promoting Workplace Diversity 577

1. "What's in a Name?" 577

2. Objective Criteria 578

3. Controlling the Environment 579

4. Workshops, Team Building, and Training 580

B. Prevention as an Affirmative Defense to the Mixed-Motive Framework 580

C. Judgment for the Plaintiff When an LNR Has Been Disproved Under the Traditional Disparate Treatment Framework 581

V. Counterarguments and Objections 583

A. Exposure, Environment, and Evaluations: Would Employers Lose Control? 583

B. An Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Defense? 585

C. Destabilizing Legal Doctrines that Rely on an Intent Standard? 587

VI. Conclusion 588

I. Introduction

Title VII operates to prohibit four main types of employment discrimination: individual disparate treatment, systemic disparate treatment, disparate impacts on certain protected groups, and harassing conduct at work. While antidiscrimination law under Title VII is expansive, the focus of this analysis will be to discuss the doctrinal framework necessary to establish a disparate treatment claim. In particular, this Note will address the two most critical words in establishing liability in a disparate treatment case-what it means to discriminate because of a protected characteristic. While courts have historically interpreted "because of' to entail a certain degree of awareness or control on the part of the discriminator-that he is consciously acting on his prejudice-social science gives us reason to reexamine the narrow lens through which we are viewing disparate treatment law. The goal of this Note is to explain the current disparate treatment framework under Title VII; to show how social science undermines judicial assumptions about the process of decision making; to propose solutions that might prevent biased errors before they happen; to correct problems when they do arise; and to shift the legal presumption when a defendant fails to carry his or her burden.

Two important issues are necessarily implicated throughout this Note. The first concerns how we view the role of antidiscrimination law and, more specifically, Title VII. We must ask: What is the goal of Title VII and how can we implement its protections in a fair and equitable way? Second, we must address the harms that result from discrimination, and whether we should hold employers liable for discriminatory practices of which they were, in some sense, unaware. This raises the question: When the requisite harm occurs, but the necessary mental state is lacking, how should we go about trying to remedy the harm suffered by plaintiffs? These questions are complex and largely involve normative conceptions of how we view the law as a tool for social change and remedial action. This Note will attempt to strike a balance between properly addressing the harms suffered by plaintiffs who have experienced discrimination and the interests of employers to avoid being unfairly labeled as prejudiced. To do this, we must embrace the spirit of the law, remain loyal to the text of Title VII, and correct erroneous judicial speculation about the source of human decision making. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Next Generation of Disparate Treatment: A Merger of Law and Social Science
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.