Featured / 10.28.2012

“Losers’ Rules:” Insights About The Difficulties in Proving Employment Discrimination Claims

We don’t like to whine about the uphill battles our brave clients face in proving that they were discriminated against and/or harassed on the job. Rather, we focus on telling our client’s story about
Table of Contents

    We don’t like to whine about the uphill battles our brave clients face in proving that they were discriminated against and/or harassed on the job. Rather, we focus on telling our client’s story about standing up for what is right and fighting for justice. But, a very wise retired federal court judge, Nancy Gertner has recently written an article that explains exactly how difficult it may be for an employee to win on his or her discrimination claim as a result of the “losers’ rules” that some courts follow. The Judge writes:

    In this Essay,  drawing on my seventeen  years  on the federal  bench, I attempt to provide a  firsthand and more  detailed  account of employment discrimination law’s skewed  evolution—the  phenomenon  I  call “Losers’ Rules.” I begin with a discussion of the wholly one-sided legal doctrines that characterize discrimination law. In effect, today’s plaintiff stands to lose unless he or she can prove that the defendant had explicitly discriminatory policies in place or that the relevant actors were overtly biased. It is hard to imagine a higher bar or one less consistent with the legal standards developed after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, let alone with the way discrimination manifests itself in the twenty-first century. Although  ideology may have something to do with  these  changes,  and indeed the  bench may be far less  supportive  of antidiscrimination  laws than it  was  during the years  following the laws’ passage, I explore another explanation. Asymmetric decisionmaking—where judges are encouraged to write detailed decisions when granting summary judgment and not to write when denying it—fundamentally changes the lens through which employment  cases  are   viewed, in  two  respects.  First, it encourages judges to see employment discrimination cases as trivial or frivolous, as decision after decision details why the plaintiff loses. And second, it leads to the development of decision heuristics—the Losers’ Rules—that serve to justify prodefendant outcomes and thereby exacerbate the one-sided development of the law.

    For the complete article, click here. Lebau & Neuworth lawyers recognize these difficulties and creatively seek ways to work around them. We don’t give up. We work for our clients.  

    Share This Story

    If you found the information provided in this article helpful, consider sharing to your social media to help others in their search for reliable information.

    Related Posts

    LET US WORK FOR YOU
    Contact the Lebau & Neuworth team to discuss your matter. We are here to help.
    The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute client relationship.
    uploadmagnifiercross