Abstract
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a monumentally important piece of legislation that ensures all Americans can enjoy a fair workplace, free of discrimination. Even so, the federal circuits remain split on a significant aspect of Title VII's interpretation. Notably, in some circuits, employees can still be scheduled or transferred based on their protected class, with minimal redress under Title VII. In Hamilton v. Dallas County, the Fifth Circuit upheld an employer's explicitly sex-discriminated schedule as unactionable under the court's standard. In doing so, the Fifth Circuit temporarily validated explicit discrimination in a key aspect of employment: the hours that an employee works. This note_comment argues that Hamilton does not exist in a vacuum and that the very possibility for the court to rule as it did in Hamilton is indicative of broader deficiencies in Title VII's case law and statutory interpretation. This note_comment reviews circuit courts' interpretations of Title VII and showcases how those courts ingrained bad precedent into longstanding law through questionable interpretations. While this note_comment gives particular attention to Hamilton and the specific issue of discriminatory scheduling and transfers, it more broadly criticizes courts' general willingness to introduce arbitrary limitations to Title VII that prevent genuinely harmed individuals from seeking recovery. In questioning courts' interpretive consistency, this note_comment also highlights the methodological and practical shortcomings of applying a textualist interpretive methodology to Title VII. This note_comment concludes by proposing a uniquely broad and purposive interpretation of Title VII. Through this, this note_comment builds off of other scholars' acknowledgements of the Civil Rights Act as a uniquely influential statute, as well as William Eskridge's particular advocacy for broad interpretations of culturally ingrained statutes.
Volume
108
Issue
4
Page
2197
Year
2024
Recommended Citation
Jordan Boudreaux,
Modern Statutory Interpretation: Correcting Court-Made Deficiencies in Title VII Law,
108
Minn. L. Rev.
2197
(2024).
Available at:
https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.4282
DOI Link
https://doi.org/10.24926/265535.4282
Publication Abbreviation
Minn. L. Rev.
