Publication Date
2010
Document Type
Article
Organizational Units
Sturm College of Law
Keywords
ADEA, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Burden-shifting
Abstract
This Article will proceed as follows: Part I will explain Gross in terms of causation and unification. Part II will argue that Gross rejected the doctrine of uniformity, a well-established and useful canon of statutory construction, without explanation. Part III will show how the courts‟ post-1991 rejection of uniformity, culminating in Gross, might be seen as a form of judicial recalcitrance. However, that Part will suggest that the Court's rejection of uniformity in Gross is better understood as a rejection of burden-shifting in disparate treatment doctrine. Finally, Part IV will argue that burden-shifting is normatively desirable in disparate treatment doctrine, and that Gross adopted the worst of the causal standards available to it. The Article concludes with a call for decisive legislative action.
Publication Statement
Originally published as Martin J. Katz, Gross Disunity, 114 PENN. ST. L. REV. 857 (2010).
Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.
Recommended Citation
Martin J. Katz, Gross Disunity, 114 PENN. ST. L. REV. 857 (2010).