Final Exam Cases Flashcards
Historical Background of Obergefell v. Hodges?
Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ bans on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in jurisdictions that provided for such marriages.
Constitutional Questions of Obergefell v. Hodges?
1) does the 14th Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex?
2) does the 14th Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state?
Yes, Yes.
Overall Decision of Obergefell?
5-4 decision; majority written by Anthony Kennedy.
The 14th Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same sex couples.
Specifics behind the decision of Obergefell?
The Court held that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to the same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples.
- Judicial precedent has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, protects the most intimate association between two people, safeguards children and families by according legal recognition to building a home & raising children, and it has historically be recognized as a keystone to social order.
- The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment also guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry, as the denial of that right would deny same-sex couples equal protection under the law.
- 1st Amendment also protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to their principles, but it does not allow states to deny same-sex coupes the right to marry on the same terms as opposite sex couples.
Roberts dissent to Obergefell?
While same-sex marriage might be good and fair policy, the Constitution does not address it, and therefore is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states have to recognize or license such unions. This issue should be decided by individual state legislatures based on the will of their electorates.
- Precedents regarding the right to marriage only strike down unconstitutional limitations on marriage as it has been traditionally defined, and therefore there is no precedental support for making a state alter its definition of marriage.
- Majority relied on overly expansive reading of Due Process and Equal Protection, w/o engaging with the judicial analysis traditionally applied to such claims.
Scalia dissent to Obergefell?
Majority overstepped the bounds of Court’s authority by becoming legislative.
- Majority departed from the established 14th Amendment jurisprudence to create a right where none existed in the Constitution
Thomas dissent to Obergefell?
Majority stretched the doctrine of substantive due process rights found in the 14th Amendment, and doing so distorted the democratic process by taking power form the legislature and putting it in the hands of the judiciary
- Legislative history of Due Process in the 5th and 14th Amendments indicates that they were meant to protect people from physical restraint and from government intervention, but they do not grant them rights to government entitlements
Alito dissent to Obergefell?
Basically the same thing as all the others, never mentioned in the Constitution so it doesn’t really exist at all.
Background to McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green?
Percy Green, a black civil rights activist, was laid off. He protested this by saying the company’s hiring and firing practices were racially motivated. As part of this protest, he parked cars to block the main roads to the workplace during the morning shift change. There was a lock-in, in which the workers were unable to leave. When the workplace advertised for qualified mechanics, Green reapplied, only to be turned down due to his involvement in the protests.
- Green filed petition with EEOC, said he was denied his position because of civil rights activism. EEOC only concluded that Green was denied his job because of his involvement in civil rights protests.
- District court dismissed the racial discrimination charge, and held McDonnell refused to rehire Green because of participation in illegal demonstrations.
- US Court of Appeals affirmed District Court that illegal protests were not protected, but remanded the case to reconsider racial discrimination.
Constitutional Questions to McDonnell Douglas v. Green?
1) Is a complaint in an employment discrimination suit limited to those charges for which the EEOC found reasonable cause?
2) If so, must the complainant present a prima facie case for racial discrimination?
No, yes.
Overall decision for McDonnell Douglas v. Green?
Unanimous decision; Powell delivered opinion.
Court held that the findings of the EEOC could not bar a suit that meets the jurisdictional requirements for suing in federal district court.
Specific decision for McDonnell Douglas v. Green?
- Congress meant to prevent discriminatory hiring practices, not guarantee jobs, so that the complainant in an employment discrimination lawsuit carries the initial burden to present a prima facie case for racial discrimination.
- Burden then shifts to the company to prove there was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the hiring and/or firing practice.
- While Green present a prima facie case, the Court held that McDonnell was not compelled to rehire him after his deliberately unlawful actives.
- Green needed to show that the corporation’s reasons regarding the unlawful activity were merely a pretext.
What is a prima facie case?
Proving all elements of a violation and proving that all the elements are there. If the employer had nothing else to say, the employee wins. Must hit all 4 categories:
1. Employee is a protected minority category?
2. Applied for an open position?
3. Was qualified for that position?
4. Did the job remain open after you applied?
What is burden of production and burden of persuasion?
Burden of production: falls on the employer to produce enough evidence to send to a jury.
Burden of persuasion: factual question that goes the jury. Will always fall on the employee.
Process of a prima facie case?
1) the employee has the burden to establish prima facile case of racial discrimination under those four categories
2) the employer has burden to articulate a legitimate, non discriminatory reason for its action
3) Employee has opportunity to say that the employer’s “legitimate reason” is pretext (aka has the right to show evidence that the employer did not follow this reasoning in all cases
Background of Griggs v. Duke Power Co.?
- Willie Griggs filed a class action, on behalf of several fellow African American employees against the employer Duke power Co.
- Griggs challenged Duke’s ‘inside’ transfer policy, which required employees who want to work in all but the company’s lowest paying Labor Department to register a minimum score on two separate aptitude tests in addition to having a high school education. Griggs claimed that Duke’s policy discriminated against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
- Court of Appeals found no discriminatory practice.
Constitutional Question behind Griggs?
Did Duke Power Co. intradepartmental transfer policy, requiring a high school education and the achievement of minimum scores on two separate aptitude tests, violate Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Yes.
Overall decision in Griggs?
Unanimous decision.
- Title VII intended to achieve equality of employment opportunities, so the Court held that Duke’s standardized testing requirement prevented a disproportionate number of African American employees from being hired and advancing to higher-paying departments within the company.
- Neither the high school graduation requirement nor the two aptitude tests was directly or intended to measure an employee’s ability to learn or perform a particular job or category of jobs within the company.
- The Court concluded that the subtle, illegal, purpose of these requirements was to safeguard Duke’s longstanding policy of giving job preferences to its white employees.
- Court does not suggest that the employer intended to discriminate – emphasis instead on history and outcomes, not intent
Background of Wards Cove Packing Company v. Atonio
- Wards Cove Packing Co. employed primarily nonwhite workers for unskilled seasonal jobs canning fish; a group of these nonwhite workers filed suit alleging that Wards Cove practiced discriminatory hiring in violation of Title VII.
- For evidence, the group compared the high percentage of nonwhite people in unskilled work with the high percentage of white people in skilled work.
- District Court rejected this claim because it found that Ward received unskilled workers through a hiring agency that enrolled primarily nonwhites.
- Court of Appeals reversed. Held that Ward had the burden of proof to show that its hiring practices were not discriminatory after the claimants presented evidence of racial disparity.
Constitutional Question of Wards Cove Packing Company v. Atonio?
Once employees present evidence of racial disparity among different classes of jobs, does the employer have to justify this disparity as a ‘business necessity’ in order to avoid a ‘disparate impact’ lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
No.
Overall decision of Wards Cove Packing Company v. Atonio?
5-4 decision. White delivered the opinion.
- The fact that one class of jobs at a firm has a higher percentage of nonwhites that another class does not by itself prove that the firm practices discriminatory hiring. Comparisons of race percentages among different job classes could wrongfully blame the employer, since what appears to show racial discrimination could it reality reflect the racial differences that exist in the labor market at large.
- Instead, the Court held that ‘the proper comparison is generally between the racial composition of the at-issue jobs and the racial composition of the qualified population in the relevant market’
- If a substantial difference is found, then the claimants must show that it is the result of a hiring practice of the employer.
Background of Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins?
- Ann Hopkins worked at Price Waterhouse for 5 years before being proposed for partnership. Although Hopkins secured a $25 million government contract that year, the board decided to put her proposal on hold for the following year. The next year, when Price Waterhouse refused to re-propose, she sued under Title VII for sex discrimination.
- Of the 622 partners at Price, 7 were women.
- Partnership selection process relied on recommendations by other partners, some of whom openly opposed women in advanced positions, but Hopkins also had problems with being aggressive and not getting along with office staff.
- District Court held that Price had discriminated, but Hopkins was not entitled to full damages because of her poor interpersonal skills.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, but held that the employer is not liable if it can show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discrimination.
Constitutional Question for Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins?
Did the Court of Appeals err in requiring the employer to prove it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discrimination by clear and convincing evidence?
Yes, in part.
