The Reasonable Woman Standard: Effects on Sexual Harassment Court Decisions

Some federal courts have used a reasonable woman standard rather than the traditional reasonable man or reasonable person standard to determine whether hostile environment sexual harassment has occurred. The current research examined the impact of the reasonable woman standard on federal district court decisions, controlling for other factors found to affect sexual harassment court decisions. Results indicated that there was a weak relationship between whether a case followed a reasonable woman precedent-setting case and the likelihood that the court decision favored the plaintiff. The implications of our findings for individuals and organizations involved in sexual harassment claims are discussed.     

TRIAL COURTS' RESPONSES TO SUPREME COURT POLICY CHANGES

This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.     

Enforcing Desegregation: A Case Study of Federal District Court Power and Social Change in Macon County Alabama

This case study of Lee v. Macon County Board of Education demonstrates that a federal district court in Alabama, enforcing Brown v. Board of Education, brought about significant social change despite constraints on the courts. The court's application of Brown played a decisive role in ending the racial caste system in this Alabama Black Belt county. The court, by adding the U.S. Department of Justice as a party, overcame constraints that had precluded the executive branch from pursuing school desegregation. Change came through the courts before Congress legislated against school segregation. Seekers of social change must evaluate the constraints on the courts relative to the constraints on the other branches and levels of government.     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.     

The Structure of American Legal Institutions and the Diffusion of Wrongful‐Discharge Laws, 1978–1999

This article evaluates how the social structure of American legal institutions influenced the diffusion of wrongful‐discharge laws over the period 1978–1999, and it assesses whether economic or political variables influenced the diffusion process. The results are surprising and quite striking. Precedents by other courts within the same federal circuit region were generally more influential in the diffusion process than precedents by courts in neighboring states or by courts within the same census or West legal reporting region, even though the precedents were on matters of state law rather than federal law and the decisions were usually made by state courts rather than federal courts. There is some limited evidence that political variables may also have been a factor, but economic variables were not statistically significant, even though the new employment laws may have had important economic consequences.     

Courts and health policy: judicial policy making and publicly funded health care in Canada

The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided political actors with the opportunity to make rights-based challenges to public policy decisions. Two challenges launched by providers and consumers of health care illuminate the impact of judicial review on health care policy and the institutional capacity of courts to formulate policy in this field. The significant impact of rights-based claims on cross-jurisdictional policy differences in a federal regime is noted.     

Stone v. Powell: The impact on state appellate court judges' perceptions

This study addresses the question of whether the United States Supreme Court decision of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), has had a significant impact on the highest level state appellate courts. The study centered around a survey sent to every member of the highest appellate court hearing criminal appeals in each of the fifty states. The major finding of the research was that Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions: a narrow, substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision, or a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism. It appears that, for the most part, state supreme courts have chosen to apply Stone v. Powell along the narrow, substantive dimension. Thus, state supreme courts have not assumed the position of equal partners with the federal courts in assuring adequate and appropriate disposition of federal claims.     

Adjudicating Executive Privilege: Federal Administrative Agencies and Deliberative Process Privilege Claims in U.S. District Courts

Government transparency is a key component of democratic accountability. The U.S. Congress and the president have created multiple legislative avenues to facilitate executive branch transparency with the public. However, when the executive branch withholds requested information from the public, the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether agencies must release documents and information to requestors. When enforcing standards of executive branch transparency, judges must balance concerns of executive autonomy and judicial intrusion into administrative decisionmaking. While much judicial scholarship focuses on the decisionmaking on high courts, in the U.S. context, federal district courts play a key role in adjudicating transparency disputes. In this article, I examine case outcomes in disputes involving agency claims of deliberative process privilege over internal agency documents litigated between 1994 and 2004. I find that U.S. federal district courts largely defer to administrative agencies in transparency disputes. However, factors such as agency structure and the congruence between judicial and administrative agency policy preferences influence whether federal judges require executive branch officials to release requested information.     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.     

Trailblazers and Those That Followed: Personal Experiences,Gender, and Judicial Empathy

This article investigates one causal mechanism that may explain why female judges on the federal appellate courts are more likely than men to side with plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases. To test whether personal experiences with inequality are related to empathetic responses to the claims of female plaintiffs, we focus on the first wave of female judges, who attended law school during a time of severe gender inequality. We find that female judges are more likely than their male colleagues to support plaintiffs in sex discrimination cases, but that this difference is seen only in judges who graduated law school between 1954 and 1975 and disappears when more recent law school cohorts of men and women judges are compared. These results suggest that the effect of gender as a trait is tied to the role of formative experiences with discrimination.     

Location,location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses

Research on sentencing has made clear that factors beyond case and offenders' attributes influence court decisions. Environmental and procedural characteristics also significantly affect the sentences of criminal courts. Yet, while state-level studies regularly control for such factors, most research on modern federal determinate sentencing has neglected jurisdictional attributes and variation as sources of extralegal sentence disparity. Using the organizational context and social worlds theoretical perspectives with a multilevel analytical approach, this study assessed how district and circuit of adjudication affect case-level lengths of sentences for federal drug-trafficking offenses, finding that both significantly affect sentencing outcomes and their predictors.     

Why courts cannot deny ADA protection to plaintiffs who do not use available mitigating measures for their impairments

Congress intended the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") to provide strong standards for addressing and eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities. Many commentators have concluded, however, that the federal courts are undermining the goals of the ADA by too narrowly construing membership in the statute's protected class. One example of this trend is courts' hostile treatment of ADA plaintiffs who do not use medications or devices that might alleviate their impairments ("nonmitigating plaintiffs"). Numerous district and appellate decisions have held or suggested that nonmitigating plaintiffs are not protected by the ADA. In addition, some commentators have proposed that courts should evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to use mitigating measures; they argues that it is unfair to burden an employer with the cost of accommodating a disability that continues to exist only because an employee unreasonably refuses to mitigate it. Contrary to the views of these courts and commentators, however, this Comment will show that nonmitigating plaintiffs are entitled to ADA protection from employment discrimination. It argues that the statute's language, history, and structure, as well as Supreme Court precedent, demonstrate that courts cannot deny ADA protection based on a plaintiff's nonuse of available mitigating measures. It also presents several considerations that weigh against any future congressional enactment that would tie ADA protection to the reasonableness of a plaintiff's decision not to mitigate an impairment.     

The Limits of Senatorial Courtesy

Because of senatorial courtesy, scholars typically assume that presidents defer to home state senators from their party when selecting judges for the federal courts. We challenge this view, arguing that presidents face structural incentives that encourage them to consult broadly with senators across the partisan and ideological spectrums in choosing nominees. Using new data on the fate of judicial vacancies on the federal district courts between 1947 and 1998, we show how institutional and political forces increase interested senators' leverage in choosing federal judges. Senatorial courtesy, we conclude, has its limits, given presidents' incentives to consult with institutionally empowered senators in selecting nominees.     

Disproportional Imprisonment of Black and Hispanic Males: Sentencing Discretion,Processing Outcomes,and Policy Structures

Disproportional incarceration of black and Hispanic men has been the subject of much critical commentary and empirical inquiry. Such disproportionality may be due to greater involvement of minority men in serious crime, to discretionary decisions by local justice officials, or to the differential impact of sentencing policies, such as mandatory minimums or sentencing guidelines, that differentially impact minority men. This study investigated the extent to which the disproportional punishment of black and Hispanic men, and local variation in such disproportionality, can be attributed to unexplained disparities in local sentencing decisions, as opposed to the extent to which such differences are mediated by sentencing policies, or case-processing and extralegal factors. We use 2005–2009 federal court and Pennsylvania state court data. Our findings suggest, particularly in Federal courts, that most disproportionality is determined by processes prior to sentencing, especially sentencing policies that differentially impact minority males.     

Criminal Prosecutions: Examining Prosecutorial Discretion and Charge Reductions in U.S. Federal District Courts

The role of the prosecutor in criminal punishments remains a fervent topic of criminal justice discourse, yet it has received limited empirical attention, particularly for U.S. Attorneys in federal district courts. The present study examines charging and sentencing outcomes in federal courts by combining charging data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The merger of these data sources overcomes limitations of each and provides for an investigation of the causes and consequences of federal prosecutorial charging decisions. Our investigation focuses on the subtle but important influences that extralegal offender characteristics exert in this process. Results indicate that some extralegal characteristics are intricately tied to the likelihood of charge reductions. Moreover, these effects sometimes interact to produce compound disadvantages for some groups of offenders. Our analyses are guided by contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision‐making.     

Federal Oversight, Local Control, and the Specter of "Resegregation" in Southern Schools

Analyzing data for the 100 largest districts in the South andBorder states, we ask whether there is evidence of "resegregation"of school districts and whether levels of segregation can belinked to judicial decisions. We distinguish segregation measuresbased on racial isolation from those based on racial imbalance.Only one measure of racial isolation suggests that districtsin these regions experienced resegregation between 1994 and2004, and changes in this measure appear to be driven largelyby the rising nonwhite percentage in the student populationrather than by district policies. Although we find no time trendin racial imbalance over this period, we find that variationsin racial imbalance across districts are nonetheless associatedwith judicial declarations of unitary status, suggesting thatsegregation in schools might have declined had it not been forthe actions of federal courts.     

Intersecting Issues Involving Asylum in the United States and Cases Arising Under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

The issue of immigration status has become the focal point in some cases arising under the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction. Asylum claims affect both substantive and procedural issues that are presented to state and federal courts. A nexus has developed between undocumented immigrants who are parties to a Hague case, and issues of habitual residence, acclimatization, and grave risk. Asylum claims have forced courts to consider the viability of such claims, requests for stay of Hague cases pending the outcome of asylum claims, the likelihood of deportation, and the effect of grants of asylum on the particular issues in the case. Where asylum has been granted to either a parent or child, substantial consideration has been given to the asylum determination by the court hearing the Hague case.     

The Effect of Pretrial Detention on Sentencing in Two Federal Districts

While a substantial body of research indicates that legal variables, such as offense severity and criminal history, principally shape sentencing decisions, other studies demonstrate that extralegal factors such as race, gender, and age influence sentencing outcomes, as well. The handful of studies focusing upon the effect of pretrial detention/release on sentencing outcomes indicate that pretrial detention is associated with greater lengths of incarceration. This study—the first to empirically examine the sentencing consequences of pretrial detention in the United States federal courts—employed a sample of 1,723 cases from two district courts (New Jersey and Pennsylvania Eastern). Pretrial detention and, to a lesser degree, revocation of granted pretrial supervision were associated with increased prison sentences; on the other hand, successfully completing a term of pretrial services supervision was associated with shorter sentence length. Implications for the federal criminal justice system are discussed.     

In the Best Interests of an Indian Child: The Indian Child Welfare Act

Before passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, state, private, and federal agencies systematically removed Indian children from their families and tribal communities, placing them with non‐Indian families with little appreciation for the detrimental impact that cultural deprivation would have on these children. State courts often ignored the sovereign authority of tribal courts with regard to their children, and were, more often than not, unwilling to acknowledge the importance of the perspective of the child's tribe and/or extended family members. With passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, Congress imposed upon state child welfare practices substantive and procedural requirements to which state courts must adhere, most notably the mandate that state courts must now give primary consideration to the placement of Indian children within their extended families and tribal communities. In addition, federal law requires state courts to recognize tribal court authority and jurisdiction over tribal children. This article reviews the history of federal, state, and private practices that propelled Congress to pass the ICWA, the changes that have resulted from this vital legislation, and the challenges that face courts in ensuring that state courts meet these requirements.     

“Because of … Sex”: the Historical Development of Workplace Sexual Harassment Law in the USA

The current article tracks the historical development of the law of workplace sexual harassment. It begins with a discussion of the implementation of the law that serves as the basis for most sexual harassment cases in the federal courts, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The article then discusses the developments that permitted sexual harassment to come within the purview of the antidiscrimination language of Title VII. Then, the major federal legal cases that have defined the contours of sexual harassment law are discussed. Finally, the current procedures to file sexual harassment claims in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, state agencies, and federal and state court are described.