Topic: The Conflict between the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress Over Workers’ Rights.
 
Time: 2013/7/3 19:00
Place: Meeting Room, Law School
Organizer: Sino-Europe Tort Law Institution
 
Speaker: Professor Joel Wm. Friedman, Tulane Law School
Host: Xiaoxiao Bi
Discussant: Will Wang
 
Attachment: Outline Of The Speech
 



The Conflict between the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Congress Over Workers’ Rights
Title VII

1. Meaning of “Because of Sex” – Mixed motive

   General Electric v. Gilbert (1976)
            Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978)
   Price Waterhouse (1989) -- “same decision” defense goes to liability
            1991 Civil Rights Act – “same decision” defense goes only to remedy
 

2. Defense to Impact Claim – Job-relatedness

   Wards Cove (1989) – burden of coming forward with explanation
            1991 Act – reinstate Albemarle re burden of persuasion
 

3. Statute of Limitations     

Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (2007)
   Fair Pay Act of 2009
 
Americans with Disabilities Act

1. Substantially Limiting

Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams (2002)
   Prevents or severely restricts
   Creating a permanent or long term impact
ADA Amendments Act of 2008
   Findings & Purposes:  “Toyota Court interpreted the term substantially limits to require                                   a greater degree f limitation than was intended by Congress”
            A purpose of the Amendments is “to reject the standards enunciated by the                               Supreme Court in Toyota”
            The Toyota Court “created an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary                                    to obtain coverage under the ADA”
   New standard re impact:  episodic or even in remission if it would substantially limit                        when active

2. Substantially Limiting – Mitigating Device

Sutton v. United Air Lines (1999)
   consider impact when person is using mitigating factor to limit coverage of statute
ADA Amendments Ac t of 2008
   Findings and Purposes Section: 
            Sutton “narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by                     the ADA”
            One of the purposes of the act was “to reject the requirement enunciated by                                      the Supreme Court in Sutton that whether an impairment substantially                                  limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the                                      ameliorative effects of mitigating measures”
   New text:  whether an impairment substantially limits is to be assessed without regard                                    to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures other than eyeglasses

3. “Regarded as”

         Sutton v. United Air Lines (1999): employer mistaken about
                   Existence of an impairment vel non; or
                   Extent of impairment
         ADA Amendments Act of 2008
                   Findings and Purposes Section:  “to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton with                                 regard to coverage under the regarded as definition of disability and to set both                                      a broad view of that term”
                   New text:  P must prove only that d’s challenged conduct
                            was motivated
                            by p’s actual or perceived impairment
                            irrespective of the impairment’s actual or perceived limiting impact upon a                                   major life activity