2003•bepress Legal RepositoryRequires access

Dubious Protected Class Distinctions: Eliminating the Role of Replacement Identity in a Discharged Title VII Plaintiff's Case

Karen G Hong

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Title VII prohibits employers from discharging an employee on the basis of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In cases involving an allegation of discriminatory discharge, the federal circuit courts of appeals have disagreed on whether to consider in the prima facie case the identity of the person the defendant employer has hired to replace the plaintiff. The majority of these courts have held that courts should not require the plaintiff to prove that a person outside of the plaintiff's protected class replaced the plaintiff in order to establish a prima facie case for employment discrimination. This Note argues that, because the underlying policy of Title VII is to protect individuals, not classes of individuals, from employment discrimination, consideration of replacement identity has no valid place in a discriminatory discharge case brought under Title VII.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Title VII prohibits employers from discharging an employee on the basis of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In cases involving an allegation of discriminatory discharge, the federal circuit courts of appeals have disagreed on whether to consider in the prima facie case the identity of the person the defendant employer has hired to replace the plaintiff. The majority of these courts have held that courts should not require the plaintiff to prove that a person outside of the plaintiff's protected class replaced the plaintiff in order to establish a prima facie case for employment discrimination. This Note argues that, because the underlying policy of Title VII is to protect individuals, not classes of individuals, from employment discrimination, consideration of replacement identity has no valid place in a discriminatory discharge case brought under Title VII.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Title VII prohibits employers from discharging an employee on the basis of the individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In cases involving an allegation of discriminatory discharge, the federal circuit courts of appeals have disagreed on whether to consider in the prima facie case the identity of the person the defendant employer has hired to replace the plaintiff. The majority of these courts have held that courts should not require the plaintiff to prove that a person outside of the plaintiff's protected class replaced the plaintiff in order to establish a prima facie case for employment discrimination. This Note argues that, because the underlying policy of Title VII is to protect individuals, not classes of individuals, from employment discrimination, consideration of replacement identity has no valid place in a discriminatory discharge case brought under Title VII.

Key concepts: Plaintiff, Prima facie, Allegation, Law, Identity (music), Political science, Employment discrimination, Philosophy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Dubious Protected Class Distinctions: Eliminating the Role of Replacement Identity in a Discharged Title VII Plaintiff's Case — Research Paper | ScholarLens