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

78 Tul. L. Rev. 1401 (2003-2004)
In Search of the Best Procedure for Enforcing Employment Discrimination Laws: A Comparative Analysis

handle is hein.journals/tulr78 and id is 1421 raw text is: TULANE LAW REVIEW VOL. 78 MAY 2004 No. 5 In Search of the Best Procedure for Enforcing Employment Discrimination Laws: A Comparative Analysis Jean R. Stemlight As our world effectively shrinks, many countries are begiming to reach a striking substantive consensus regarding the prohibition of employment discrimination. Yet, and in sharp contras4 nothing approaching consensus has yet emerged regarding the best procedural method with which to resolve indm dual claims of employment discrimination. Instead while countries have smggled individually, to devise processes that meet a vaiety of needs, none seems to be satisfied with its efforts. Litigation is slow, costly, and impersonal Informal processes such as conciliation, mediation, arbitration, or administrative processes aim to be faster and cheaper, but may not result in adequate enforcement of discrimination laws. This Artcle suggests that by comparing the procedural approaches taken by three countres we can learn a great deal about why it has been so difficult to devise a good procedure for resolving employment &scrimination disputes and also gain some significant insights regarding how to better handle such disputes in the futur. Specifically, it provides an in-depth examination of how the United States, Bitain, and Australia have attempted to handle employment discrimination disputes. This ongmal comparative research reveals that policy makers in each counby have typically focused only or primarily on what has and has not worked in their own jurisdiction, and have often devised systems that oscillate, somewhat predictably, between formal systems such as litigation and informal systems such as conciliation. Through examining ten aspects of employment discrimination claims that are common to all three * Saltman Professor of Law, University of Nevada Las Vegas, and Director of the Saltman Center for Conflict Resolution. My research on this Article was funded in part by a grant from the College and University Affiliation Program of Educational and Cultural Affairs Bureau (formerly USIA) of the U.S. Department of State. This grant allowed me to travel to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to conduct a series of interviews. I also appreciatively acknowledge the financial support provided by the summer research grant from my prior institution, the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law. Last but certainly not least I thank my research assistants Alyson Carrel, Jennifer Chierek, Natalya Johnson, and Mark Lyons, and also Missouri School of Law librarians Steve Lambson and Diane Collins. Without their help I could not have accomplished this comparative research. 1401

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