About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

46 B.C. L. Rev. 215 (2004-2005)
Adopting the EEOC Deterrence Approach to the Adverse Employment Action Prong in a Prima Facie Case for Title VII Retaliation

handle is hein.journals/bclr46 and id is 227 raw text is: ADOPTING THE EEOC DETERRENCE APPROACH TO THE ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTION PRONG IN A PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR TITLE VII RETALIATION Abstract: Section 704(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees who oppose what they consider to be workplace discrimination from subsequent employer retaliation. The retaliation provision, however, does not delineate the types of discriminatory acts that an employer is prohibited from taking. Thus, the federal circuit courts of appeals are divided on what types of acts rise to the level of adverse action such that an employee plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of retaliation. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of the retaliation provision is to maintain unfettered access to Title VII's remedial mechanisms. This Note argues that the most appropriate way to do this is to ensure that all retaliatory acts that would likely deter an employee from filing a discrimination charge or otherwise opposing discriminatory activity should be prohibited. INTRODUCTION Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's prohibition on retalia- tion is essential in ensuring that employees do not suffer quietly through workplace discrimination without voicing their complaints.1 When employees oppose what they consider to be discriminatory acts or behavior, an employer may not then discriminate against those employees for doing so.2 Recently, retaliation claims have received a great deal of attention from courts as well as legal commentators.3 In part, this is due to the I See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) (1)-(2), -3(a) (2000). 2 See id. § 2000e-3 (a). 3 See Ray v. Henderson, 217 F.3d 1234, 1240 (9th Cir. 2000); Donna Smith Cude & Brian M. Steger, Does Justice Need Glasses? Unlawful Retaliation Under Title VII Following Mat- tern: Will Courts Know It When They See It?, 14 LAB. LAw. 373, 373-75 (1998); Joel A. Kravetz, Deterrence v. Material Harm: Finding the Appropriate Standard to Define an Adverse Action in Retaliation Claims Brought Under the Applicable Equal Employment Opportunity Stat- utes, 4 U. PA.J. LAB. & EMP. L. 315, 316-18 (2002); MatthewJ. Wiles, Note, Defining Adverse

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most