Individualizing Back Pay Relief in Title VII Class Actions
Introduction
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (“1991 Act”), back pay is one of the available monetary remedies for victims of discriminatory employment practices. The primary goal of the 1991 Act, signed into law on November 21, 1991, was to revitalize the nation’s employment discrimination laws. The 1991 Act was expected to accomplish this goal, in part, by strengthening the substantive provisions supporting disparate impact claims by legislatively overturning the Supreme Court’s ruling in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio.
The scope and effectiveness of a law is determined as much by the contours of the remedy it provides as by the standards for determining its violation. In the context of antidiscrimination law, commentators have traditionally focused on injunctive relief. Recent scholarship, however, has emphasized the importance of monetary remedies in providing incentive for victims of employment discrimination to pursue what are often difficult and lengthy Title VII claims. Congress recognized the connection between remedy and liability in the 1991 Act by providing for compensatory and punitive damages for victims of intentional discrimination in the workplace. However, the primary monetary remedy in disparate impact actions remains back pay. Given Congress’ reaffirmation of disparate impact as a central theory for proving employment discrimination, an analytic exploration of the monetary relief for such Title VII violations is in order.
Suggested Reading
#SayHerName: Racial Profiling and Police Violence Against Black Women
Andrea J. Ritchie{{Andrea J. Ritchie is a civil rights attorney who has led groundbreaking research, litigation, and advocacy efforts to challenge profiling, policing, and physical and sexual violence by law enforcement against women, girls and LGBTQ people of color for
Conservative Progressivism in Immigrant Habeas Court: Why Boumediene v. Bush is the Baseline Constitutional Minimum
Ever since Boumediene was decided federal judges have not applied the full force of all six of Boumediene’s holdings to immigrant habeas cases, and as a direct result immigration advocates lost their most important cases to date.
Miller and Young Adults: Fighting for Inclusion
We have a lot of fighting left to do, both in court and in the legislature, and my work will continue on this issue and many others.
Does U.S. Federal Employment Law Now Cover Caste Discrimination Based On Untouchability?: If All Else Fails There is the Possible Application of Bostock v. Clayton County
The Bostock approach avoids the question of whether caste discrimination based on untouchability is a form of national origin or racial discrimination and instead recognizes that the “but-for” causation standard applies under both Section 1981 and Title VII.