Can You Recruit on Campus? Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Teleforum Friday, April 07, 02:00 PMFederalist Society Teleforum Conference Call
Are college job fairs and recruiting doomed as discriminatory activities? In February, a District Court in California ruled that job applicants could maintain a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) challenging the practice of recruiting entry-level workers mostly through a program available only to recent college graduates. But last October, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed en banc the dismissal of a case brought by an over-40 job seeker who alleged that the company engaged in age discrimination by using screening guidelines describing the “targeted candidate” as someone “2-3 years out of college” who “adjusts easily to changes,” and suggesting to avoid “applicants in sales for 8-10 years.” The two cases are Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2017 WL 661354 (N.D.Cal., 2017) and Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco, 839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016) Petition for Certiorari Filed (NO. 16-971), Feb 02, 2017.
Eric S. Dreiband, a partner in the Washington office of Jones Day and former General Counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, will share his thoughts on these cases and take listener questions.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Eric S. Dreiband, Partner, Jones Day
Hardie v. NCAA is a recently argued case from the Ninth Circuit. It involves a NCAA ban on all convicted felons from coaching in NCAA-certified tournaments held for recruiting student-athletes to NCAA Division I schools. The key question is whether this policy has a “disparate impact” (disproportional statistical effect, but without any racially discriminatory intent) on African Americans -- and whether Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which precludes “discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin” in “places of public accommodation,” bans such disproportionate results. The district court ruled that Title II did not cover disparate impact, but, in a surprising move, the NCAA abandoned that winning argument on appeal.
Pacific Legal Foundation Senior Attorney Joshua Thompson discussed the parties’ arguments and explained why PLF as amicus was the only party to support the lower court’s judgment. Roger Clegg, President and General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity, will also join us to moderate the call.
Professional Responsibility & Legal Education and Free Speech & Election Law Practice Groups Podcast
- Mr. Joshua P. Thompson, Senior Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation
- Moderator: Mr. Roger Clegg, President & General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
Eugene Volokh December 13, 2016
Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law joined us Monday, December 12 to discuss the ABA’s new Rule 8.4 on professional misconduct. The Rule states that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law.” The ABA goes further in Comments, stating that “Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others,” and that the Rule applies in any situation, even social, that is “connected to the practice of law.” Professor Volokh discussed the First Amendment implications and reaction to the new rule.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Professor Eugene Volokh, , Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law
Peter N. Kirsanow October 14, 2016
Recent legal developments ranging from Supreme Court decisions to administrative actions have raised significant issues about the balance between religious liberties and prohibitions against discrimination. To what extent must an individual’s right to religious freedom yield to the state’s interest in protecting individuals against discrimination? Does the Free Exercise Clause extend beyond one’s home or church?
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recently issued a report that appears to tilt in favor of nondiscrimination over religious liberty. What does this portend for the future of religious liberty?
Criminal Law & Procedure Practice Group Podcast
- Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, , Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
John C. Richter October 11, 2016
On Tuesday, October 11, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. This case involves the constitutionality of a Colorado rule that bars a defendant from introducing evidence that a juror was racially biased. The justices will consider whether applying a no-impeachment rule to block evidence in this context violates the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
- John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding