1412 research outputs found
Sort by
The Inherent Harm of Employment Discrimination: What Behavioral Economics Teaches Us About Title VII\u27s Adverse Action Requirement
Full text linkFor decades, many courts have wrestled with the judicially created concept of adverse employment actions in determining whether a plaintiffhas proved a primafacie case of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of1964. Circuit courts have regularly applied different types of heightened adverse employment action standards, which only muddied the already complicated understanding ofworkplace discrimination. This Comment explores the recent circuit split concerning adverse employment actions and the introduction of the Supreme Court\u27s new some harm testfrom Muldrow v. City of St. Louis. This Comment takes the position that principal behavioral economics theories can inform the judicial system\u27s understanding ofwhat it means to suffer harm in the context ofemployment discrimination and proposes a new standardfor adverse employment actions that incorporates those theories
Can the General Assembly Turn Back the Hands of Time? \u3cem\u3eMcKinney v. Goins\u3c/em\u3e and the Constitutionality of the Revival Provision in North Carolina\u27s SAFE Child Act
Full text linkThis Comment analyzes the current debate over the constitutionality of the SAFE Child Act’s “Revival Provision” under the North Carolina Constitution through the case McKinney v. Goins and argues why the North Carolina Supreme Court should find the “Revival Provision” constitutional
Protecting Defendants\u27 Rights: Why North Carolina Should Proceed Under the No Due Diligence Standard
Full text linkCurrently, there is considerable variation in the application of Brady v. Maryland regarding how much information the prosecution must disclose. Many Courts have imposed a diligence standard upon the defense, allowing the prosecution to withhold valuable information so long as the defense could have discovered it. This is a significant departure from the original rationale for “Brady violations” that places a greater burden on the defense and yields inequitable outcomes for defendants through no fault of their own. This Comment outlines relevant Supreme Court precedent and policy implications, and it encourages North Carolina to adopt a standard that requires the prosecution to readily provide information
