Publication Date


Document Type


Organizational Units

Sturm College of Law


Civil Rights Act of 1991, Burden of proof, Disparate treatment, Adverse employment action, Employment discrimination


The Article will proceed in three parts. Part I will show the fragmented state of current disparate treatment law. Part II will demonstrate why this fragmentation is problematic as a normative matter, and why the I99I Civil Rights Act framework is superior to the Price Waterhouse and McDonnell Douglas frameworks. Part III will point the way toward a unified disparate treatment doctrine, in which all litigants will use the 1991 Act framework.

Publication Statement

Originally published as Martin J. Katz, Unifying Disparate Treatment (Really), 59 HASTINGS L. J. 643 (2008).

Copyright is held by the author. User is responsible for all copyright compliance.