Law Review for Prelim 1.3

Law Review for Prelim 1.3 - Law Review for Prelim 1 IRAC...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Law Review for Prelim 1 21/02/2007 17:02:00 IRAC Issue Rule Application Conclusion Dan Example Dan’s going to sue for discrimination under alcoholism.  Rule: You can’t discriminate against someone if he’s an alcoholic Application: In this particiular case it’s unclear whether or not they were  treated the same way. You explain when the employer could fire somebody  on the job and when they couldn’t. You take one side based on the  application.  Conclusion: restating what you said in your application and choosing a correct  side.  The first question isn’t going to be IRA. Usually going  Damages Prior to 1991:  equitable relief only (backpay and reinstatement) Civil Rights Act of 1991:  added punitive and compensatory o Punitive (we’re gonna give the guy money because the other guy is  bad) and compensatory. Unavailable in unintentional discrim. Cases.  o Must prove that employer was reckless OR malicious
Image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Misc. Title VII Issues: Damages Not reckless or malicious: o 1) If ER was unaware that the conduct was against the law o 2) Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) o 3) Novel area of the law (obscure like hair color) Reckless/ Malicious BUT ER can assert this defense: o ER made a good faith effort to comply with the law Intentional Discrimination Burdine/Hicks Model  STEP ONE: Plaintiff:  proves  prima facie case o Protected class o Minimally qualified and applied  o Adverse employment action (fired, not hired, etc) o Position remained open was ultimately filled by a person not in the  protected class (hiring case) OR similarly situated person treated  differently (firing case)  STEP TWO: Then, Defendant: o Articulates  (produces) a (legitimate) non-discriminatory reason That’s it! Defendant doesn’t PROVE anything STEP THREE: Finally Plaintiff  o PROVES
Image of page 2
Pretext plus some evidence of discrimination Or, if just pretext, jury may infer discrimination  Mixed Motives Model  (Burdine Hicks is better when it is completely clear when  there was discrimination or if there is absolutely no evidence. If it’s not clear, use Mixed  Motives Model) 
Image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern