Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GSCL,volume 28))

  • 519 Accesses

Abstract

The history of antidiscrimination law in the United States is a study in contradictions. The principle of equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and interpreted to prohibit discrimination. Yet, enforcing constitutional and statutory nondiscrimination norms through litigation has engendered a range of conflicts and challenges that inhibit the achievement of real equality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 299.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 379.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    U.S. Declaration of Independence.

  2. 2.

    U.S. Constitution, art. IV, sec. 2, para. 3.

  3. 3.

    U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIII.

  4. 4.

    Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), but see Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968).

  5. 5.

    E.g., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act only protects workers over the age of 40 years.

  6. 6.

    347 U.S. 483 (1954).

  7. 7.

    Equal Pay Act, Public Law 88-38 (1963); Civil Rights Act of 1964, Public Law 88-354 (1964).

  8. 8.

    There must be a specific intent to deprive the injured party of a constitutional right to warrant prosecution. Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945).

  9. 9.

    See the discussion of Fisher v. University of Texas in section 11, infra.

  10. 10.

    “Houston Voters Repeal Measure Ensuring Rights,” New York Times, November 5, 2015, p. A1.

  11. 11.

    42 U.S.C. 1988.

  12. 12.

    See, e.g., Sherry (2016).

  13. 13.

    See Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001).

  14. 14.

    See Silver-Greenberg and Corkery (2015). For a recent empirical study of employment discrimination arbitration affirming this finding, see Gough (2014), p. 91.

  15. 15.

    These groups submitted amicus briefs in Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), as well as Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).

  16. 16.

    See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).

  17. 17.

    Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 562 (2009).

  18. 18.

    See Brescia (2011), p. 235.

  19. 19.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

  20. 20.

    New York State Human Rights Law, § 292.2 (2016).

  21. 21.

    Cal. Gov. Code. § 12926(d).

  22. 22.

    Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b).

  23. 23.

    Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 631.

  24. 24.

    Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d).

  25. 25.

    Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681.

  26. 26.

    Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701.

  27. 27.

    E.g. Badih v. Myers, 36 Cal. App. 4th1289 (1995).

  28. 28.

    Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1(a).

  29. 29.

    See Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 132 S.Ct. 694 (2012).

  30. 30.

    McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1972).

  31. 31.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(m).

  32. 32.

    Gross v. FBL Financial Services, 557 U.S. 167 (2009).

  33. 33.

    Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005).

  34. 34.

    42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e).

  35. 35.

    29 U.S.C. § 621(f)(1).

  36. 36.

    Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5).

  37. 37.

    Note, however, that Title VII defines “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

  38. 38.

    Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009).

  39. 39.

    Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).

  40. 40.

    Fisher v. University of Texas, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016).

  41. 41.

    Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S.Ct. 1623 (2014).

  42. 42.

    See Clermont et al. (2003), p. 547; Clermont and Schwab (2009), p. 103; Schneider (2010), p. 517.

  43. 43.

    See Brescia (2011), p. 235.

  44. 44.

    See Memorandum from Joe Cecil & George Cort, Fed. Judicial Ctr., to Judge Michael Baylson, U.S. Dist. Court for the E. Dist. of Pa. 7 tbl.4 (Nov. 2, 2007), http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/insumjre.pdf/$file/insumjre.pdf (showing 74–77% summary judgment grant rate in employment discrimination cases, higher than other types of cases included in study).

  45. 45.

    See Reeves (2008), p. 481.

  46. 46.

    Gilbert v. General Electric Co., 429 U.S. 125 (1976) (declining to defer to EEOC’s interpretation of Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination as encompassing pregnancy discrimination). See generally Suk (2006), p. 405.

  47. 47.

    See Johnson (2012), p. 1339.

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Schultz (2003), p. 2061.

  49. 49.

    Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102–166, § 1977A, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

  50. 50.

    For an account of the dynamics between the new remedies in 1991 and the litigation behaviors they incentivized, see Donohue III and Siegelman (2005).

  51. 51.

    New York Local Law 33, April 20, 2015, available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/cchr/html/law/amendment_4_2015_b.shtml.

References

  • Brescia RH (2011) The Iqbal effect: the impact of new pleading standards on employment and housing litigation. Kentucky Law J 100:235

    Google Scholar 

  • Clermont K, Schwab S (2009) Employment discrimination plaintiffs in federal courts: from bad to worse? Harv Law Policy Rev 3:103

    Google Scholar 

  • Clermont K, Eisenberg T, Schwab S (2003) How employment discrimination plaintiffs fare in federal courts of appeals. Empl Rights Employ Policy J 7:547

    Google Scholar 

  • Donohue JJ III, Siegelman P (2005) The evolution of employment discrimination law in the 1990s: a preliminary empirical investigation. In: Nielsen LB, Nelson RL (eds) Handbook on employment discrimination: rights and realities. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gough MD (2014) The high costs of an inexpensive forum: an empirical analysis of employment discrimination claims heard in arbitration and civil litigation. Berkeley J Employ Lab Law 35:91

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson O (2012) Beyond the private attorney general: equality directives in American law. N Y Univ Law Rev 87:1339

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves L (2008) Pragmatism over politics, recent trends in lower court employment discrimination jurisprudence. Mo Law Rev 74:481

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider E (2010) The changing shape of federal pretrial civil practice: the disparate impact on federal civil rights and employment discrimination cases. Pa Law Rev 158:517

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz V (2003) The sanitized workplace. Yale Law J 112:2061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherry M (2016) A colleague drank my breast milk and other wall street tales. New York Times, January 13

    Google Scholar 

  • Silver-Greenberg J, Corkery M (2015) A privatization of the justice system. New York Times, November 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Suk JC (2006) Antidiscrimination law in the administrative state. Univ Illinois Law Rev 2006:405

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Yeshiva University, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York City, NY, USA

    Julie C. Suk

  2. University of Minnesota, School of Law, Minneapolis, MN, USA

    Fred L. Morrison

Authors
  1. Julie C. Suk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fred L. Morrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie C. Suk .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Sciences Po Law School, Paris, France

    Marie Mercat-Bruns

  2. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    David B. Oppenheimer

  3. Berkeley Law, Berkeley, California, USA

    Cady Sartorius

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Suk, J.C., Morrison, F.L. (2018). The United States. In: Mercat-Bruns, M., Oppenheimer, D., Sartorius, C. (eds) Comparative Perspectives on the Enforcement and Effectiveness of Antidiscrimination Law. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_28

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90068-1_28

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-90067-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-90068-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation