Over twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court in Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. held that a white resident of an apartment complex had standing to sue the building owners for rental practices that discriminated against minority applicants.’ In a unanimous ruling, the Court reasoned that because the owner’s racially discriminatory rental policies injured all residents of the housing complex, the white plaintiff had standing to sue under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 for “loss of important benefits from interracial associations.”‘ In the years since Trafficante, this theory of standing based on the loss of associational benefits has been intermittently extended to workplace antidiscrimination suits brought by white plaintiffs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Applying Trafficante, numerous courts have held that white employees have standing to claim that their employer’s discriminatory actions against minority employees or applicants have “polluted” their work environment.
Examination of Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp. and its impact on Title VII discrimination claims; argues that it's inconsistent with Title VII enforcement scheme
Federal courts' prevailing interpretation of Title VII as it relates to religious attire is inconsistent with the law.
Mandatory arbitration for guestworkers, a uniquely vulnerable group, will result in class inequality and worse conditions for all workers.
Voting rights advocates should explore section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act as a vehicle to combat voter intimidation.