印第安纳州法律期刊

文档类型

文章

出版日期

2023年春季

出版物的引用

98年印第安纳州法律期刊1135年(2023年)

文摘

当拒绝长期责任标准,法院常常引用害怕打开闸门的诉讼。也就是说,法院指出,一个想要保护的摘要联邦法院或行政部门的负担。但没有经验证据研究是否采用更严格的标准,事实上,减少在这种情况下提出的合法要求。本文实证分析和理论模型采用的影响可以说是严格责任诉讼通过调查标准的背景下,最高法院的一个最近的依赖在这个论点采用严格责任的因果关系标准的就业歧视索赔。2013年,最高法院裁定,原告证明报复下《民权法案》第七章必须证明他们的参与在一个受保护的活动是一个离婚的原因不良就业行动他们有经验。拒绝更长期激励因素的标准,法院说,“[L]埃森因果关系标准也可能导致提起的索赔,将雇主[s]虹吸资源从努力下,行政机构和法院应对职场性骚扰。”泰克斯拜尔教授。西南。地中海,点击率。诉Nassar 570美国338,358 (2013)。在过去的十年里,法院推翻了激励因素因果关系的应用程序应用于至少四个不同的联邦反歧视法规。 Contrary to the Supreme Court’s concern that motivating-factor causation encourages frivolous charges, many employment law scholars worry that the heightened but-for standard will deter legitimate claims. This Article empirically explores these concerns, in part using data received from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Specifically, it empirically tests whether the adoption of the but-for causation standard for claims filed under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and by federal courts of appeals under the Americans with Disabilities Act has impacted the filing of discrimination claims and the outcome of those claims in federal court. Consistent with theory detailed in this Article, the empirical analysis provides evidence that the stricter standard may have increased the docket of the federal courts by decreasing settlement within the EEOC and during litigation. The empirical results weigh in on concerns surrounding the adoption of the but-for causation standard and provide evidence that the floodgates argument, when relied on to deter frivolous filings by changing liability standards, in fact, may do just the opposite by decreasing the likelihood of settlement in the short term, without impacting the filing of claims or other case outcomes.

下载

分享

硬币