Alexander v. Sandoval:A Setback for Civil Rights

This article confronts the serious implications of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Alexander v. Sandoval, which eliminated an important legal avenue for civil rights plaintiffs. For over 35 years, individuals have been allowed to bring lawsuits directly challenging violations of rights set forth in the federal regulations implementing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Because these actions could be grounded in proof of disparate impact, rather than discriminatory intent, they allowed for some claims that could not go forward under other legal authorities, such as the Fourteenth Amendment. While the author concludes by identifying key remaining options, he highlights the real damage done by this decision.

Download Full-text

Opening Up the Workplace

Julius Chambers ◽

10.5149/northcarolina/9781469628547.003.0011 ◽

2016 ◽

Author(s):

Richard A. Rosen ◽

Joseph Mosnier

Keyword(s):

Civil Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Racial Discrimination ◽

Federal Courts ◽

Title Vii ◽

Job Seekers ◽

Disparate Impact ◽

Civil Rights Act ◽

Employment Screening ◽

Opening Up

This chapter describes the contributions of Julius Chambers and his partners, most particularly Robert Belton, to the LDF's national litigation campaign to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which new law outlawed racial discrimination in the workplace effective July 1965. In October 1965, Chambers filed the nation's first-ever Title VII suit, and soon after filed three additional cases which, when ultimately decided years later, substantially ended overt racial discrimination in American workplaces. These critical victories included Supreme Court triumphs in Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) and Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), and the Fourth Circuit's Robinson v. Lorillard Corp. (1971). Griggs, recognized as the era's landmark employment ruling, established the "disparate impact" standard for adjudicating employers' use of "intelligence" tests and other pre-employment screening mechanisms. Together, Griggs, Moody, and Robinson did much to define the federal courts' interpretations of Title VII in a fashion that both opened workplaces to black job seekers and offered some compensatory remedy to those who had suffered under racially discriminatory workplace schemes. By these efforts, Chambers, his partners, and the LDF would leave the American workplace forever changed.

Download Full-text

After Janus: Teachers’ Unions, Walkouts, and Social Justice Unionism

International Journal of Educational Reform ◽

10.1177/1056787920918601 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 334-353

Author(s):

Natasha M. Strassfeld ◽

Robert N. Strassfeld

Keyword(s):

Social Justice ◽

Civil Rights ◽

Supreme Court ◽

Supreme Court Decision ◽

Strength Test ◽

Court Decision ◽

Teachers Unions ◽

Union Participation

Recent union-supported teachers’ walkouts and strikes across several U.S. states and cities highlighted union-led and grassroots efforts to amplify teachers’ voices. Yet, the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, provides a strength test for teachers’ unions and members engaging in social justice/equity work within a post- Janus landscape. This article first explores traditional functions of teachers’ unions. Next, it examines Janus and potential consequences for union participation, teachers’ advocacy, and civil rights. Using a social justice lens, the article discusses how and why unions may need to consider strengthening “social justice unionism” by building on walkouts and strikes.

Download Full-text