10633 research outputs found
Sort by
Title IX and Employment Discrimination: A Wrong in Search of a Remedy
No full text(Excerpt)
Since the early 1960\u27s when the struggle for women\u27s rights gained renewed strength and hope from the civil rights movement, a number of federal laws have been enacted to protect the rights of women in employment. Among these laws are included Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Title VII) which prohibits employment discrimination based upon sex in addition to the grounds of race, color, religion and national origin; Executive Order 11375 which prohibits sex discrimination by employers holding federal contracts; and the Equal Pay Act of 1963 as amended in 1972 which prohibits unequal pay on the basis of sex. In addition, individual states have passed legislation which provides further protection to the rights of women workers, such as the New York State Human Rights Act. When compared to the scope and enforcement procedures of the foregoing laws, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Title IX) takes on a particular significance as the first legislative enactment to move beyond the limits of sex discrimination in employment and extend the protection of the laws to students enrolled in identified educational institutions. The enforcement of Title IX by the Office for Civil Rights (hereinafter referred to as OCR) with possible termination of federal funding for non-compliance differentiates the Act from its predecessors.
Several interpretive questions have arisen since Title IX was enacted in 1972. In their attempts to give shape to a vaguely worded statute, the courts have analyzed legislative history and statutory language and have considered various analogies to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Title VI), a similarly worded statute that prohibits race discrimination in federally assisted programs. The most widely litigated question arising under Title IX is whether the statute covers employment discrimination, i.e., whether the Department of Health Education and Welfare (hereinafter referred to as HEW) acted ultra vires in promulgating regulations governing employment pursuant to Title IX
State Medical Malpractice Screening Panels in Federal Diversity Actions
Full text linkDuring the early 1970\u27s, a medical malpractice crisis was perceived in the United States. An increasing number of costly and time-consuming lawsuits alleging medical malpractice against doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers caused malpractice insurers to raise premiums substantially, which in turn threatened to curtail the availability of adequate health care at reasonable cost. State legislatures responded to the crisis with a variety of substantive and procedural measures intended to reduce the number of litigated claims and the size of jury awards. One of the principal steps taken in a majority of states was the creation of extrajudicial panels comprised of some combination of doctors, attorneys, judges, and laymen for the consideration of medical malpractice claims prior to the ordinary trial process. Such panels, variously termed screening, mediation, review, advisory, hearing, or arbitration panels, generally determine in an informal manner whether a plaintiff\u27s claim has merit before it is presented to a jury, thereby facilitating early settlement of meritorious claims and discouraging the prosecution of groundless ones. The desired result is a reduction in the costs, expenses, and consumption of time associated with the litigation of medical malpractice actions in the courts, thus easing the malpractice crisis. Inevitably, some medical malpractice claims find their way into federal district courts pursuant to diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. If the federal court is located in a state which requires the screening of such claims, the court must decide whether, and to what extent, the panel procedures must be utilized. The court\u27s decision will be based on the resolution of several issues: Whether the particular claim and litigants fall within the scope of the panel legislation; whether the legislation is constitutional under state and federal principles of equal protection, due process, and the right to jury trial; and whether the legislation is a state law which must be applied in federal court under the Rules of Decision Act as construed by Erie Railroad v. Tompkins and its progeny. The constitutionality of screening panels has been upheld by most courts that have considered the issue, and other commentators have treated the subject in depth. This article focuses upon the three unique problems presented by the applicability of screening panel legislation in federal courts: Erie, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the seventh amendment right to jury trial. Section I surveys the principal types of screening panels that have been utilized to date. Section II analyzes the evolution of the standard to be applied under Erie in determining whether state rules having both procedural and substantive attributes must be applied in federal courts. The recommended test is a flexible one, but in accordance with the principles of federalism, it prevents impairment of clearly discernible substantive policies of the states. Section III takes up the question whether Erie requires compliance with screening panel hearings in federal courts under such standard. Section IV examines the trio of authorities-Erie, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the seventh amendment-that must be considered in determining whether panel findings may be admitted into evidence at a subsequent trial in federal court. It is concluded that a proper regard for the principles of federalism requires application of screening panel legislation in federal diversity actions in accordance with state law and that the seventh amendment is not thereby violated
Condominium Unit Real Estate Tax Assessment Problems
Full text link(Excerpt)
To meet ever-increasing demands for public services, local governments have relied upon taxation of real property as a primary source of revenue.\u27 Since most realty is subject to these exactments, the number of individuals affected is substantial. The statutory framework for realty taxation has been complicated by the emergence of the condominium form of property ownership. Usually, a condominium owner holds title to his particular apartment or unit in fee simple. In addition, he has an undivided interest in the land and all other parts of the building held for the common use or benefit of the unit owners. Although the form which the condominium assumes may be residential or commercial, freehold or leasehold, the individual holders possess real property interests subject to taxation.
The condominium presents taxing authorities with a two-phase assessment problem. The value of the overall property must first be appraised, a task made difficult by the scarcity of relevant market data. Once the assessed value is determined, the tax liability must be equitably apportioned among the unit holders. Should the authorities fail to make fair assessments, the unit holders must, in turn, choose the most effective means of mounting a tax protest